[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 103 (Thursday, June 22, 1995)]
[House]
[Pages H6260-H6267]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]


          RESCISSIONS, BUDGET, AUTHORIZATIONS, APPROPRIATIONS

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of May 
12, 1995, the gentlewoman from Texas, [Ms. Jackson-Lee] is recognized 
for 60 minutes as the designee of the minority leader.
  Ms. Jackson-Lee. Mr. Speaker, rescissions, budget authorization, 
appropriation. Mr. Speaker, I imagine the American people are wondering 
what holds up in the U.S. Congress, what is the job and the tasks of 
those that would represent us.
  We have heard these words: rescission, budget, authorization, and 
appropriation.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak to an issue of great importance, 
not only to the people of my Houston district, the 18th Congressional 
District, but to the entire country. It is interesting, Members will 
hear my colleagues on the other side of the aisle chastise, criticize, 
and disjoint the pleas of the American people. What they will claim is 
that this particular Congress is filled with nothing but special 
interests, special interests here, special interests there, special 
interests over there.
  I would simply say that this Nation is not filled with special 
interests, it is filled with special aspirations. We want to be 
inspired and challenged. We want to dream. We want a Nation that is not 
on the brink of a recession. We want economic enhancement and 
development.
  Mr. Speaker, I would simply say, as we begin to look at this 
process--rescissions, budget authorization and appropriation--why do we 
not understand what the special aspirations are of Americans?
  I would simply say that this young lady, possibly an honors graduate, 
simply wants an opportunity for higher education; or would you say that 
she does not deserve it? I would venture to say if she is typical, she 
has about 70 percent student loans that have to be paid back, and we 
understand that we must make sure and ensure that we have a system that 
ensures that recommitment back to the student loan program, and maybe 
only 30 percent scholarship. She is typical of the student in America 
today: hardworking.
  Many campuses that I go and visit in my district alone, which is only 
an example, whether they are the Houston Community College, whether it 
is a 4-year college in Chicago, IL, or maybe a private college in 
Atlanta, GA, there are hardworking students there. All they simply want 
is an opportunity and a chance.
  What do we have out of this process of rescissions, budget, 
authorization, and appropriations? Cutting student loans, not for 
fiscal responsibility, which I have standing to be here, because I 
voted for a balanced budget, but we do not have our interests and our 
goals and our focus right.
  When we go to the House floor and begin to talk about deadbeats in 
America, does that include those citizens who have fallen upon tragic 
hard times in Oklahoma City? Does it include those who have faced 
tragedy and loss in Florida, with the weather and hurricanes? Does it 
include those individuals and citizens in California suffering in the 
recent earthquake just about a year ago or so?
  America is a country of people. It is people with aspirations. Yes, 
we should balance the budget, but what are we doing? During the 
rescissions process, which is taking back money, it seemed that we 
could find nowhere else to cut but summer jobs. That seems like someone 
would be able to stand up and talk about ``Oh, another handout.'' I 
argue vigorously not, for summer jobs, which must include the 
partnership of corporate America, give young people the opportunity to 
work. It gives them the culture of work. It allows them to have an 
understanding of what work is all about.
  Although these particular youngsters are not necessarily real, they 
do symbolize what is good about America, the fact that we have children 
who have an opportunity to grow up strong, hopefully healthy, like many 
of the babies and young people and elementary school youngsters that I 
see in Wesley Elementary School or Turner Elementary School or Peck 
Elementary School or Pleasantville Elementary School, located in the 
18th district, along with the wonderful elementary schools in the North 
Forest Independent School District, and Ailine, and parts of Ailey.
                              {time}  1845

  It simply exhibits that we have as a responsibility in this Nation to 
be fiscally responsible but to take care of our children. [[Page H 
6261]] 
  Do you think it makes sense, then, to cut a program called WIC, women 
and infant children, that not only provides nourishment and nutrition 
for children but in fact it provides opportunity for young mothers to 
get their children immunized? What is the ultimate impact of that? It 
means that we will have less of those be subject to disease, and lower 
health costs, and all of us would like to see that.
  What we have had happen is rescission, so the first part of this half 
a year has been taking back money. It seems that the knife-cutting has 
been on the aspirations of young people and children, clearly taking 
away hope, and not playing the role that the government should, not in 
charge, not dominating but actually being a partner. That is what we 
should be.
  We have heard your cry from America, and we know there are those who 
may be a little misguided. I read an errant writer who wrote to a local 
paper,

       Don't ask me to feel guilty for the innocent children of 
     someone who is too lazy to provide for them. Sorry, it just 
     does not work anymore. When you can find several generations 
     of welfare recipients living in public housing, who live off 
     of others from birth until death, something is wrong and it's 
     just not my fault.

  An easy statement to make. In fact, as my children would say, that's 
the ``in'' thing. ``That's fresh. That's cool.'' That is what everybody 
is saying. That is what the polls say is something good and cool and 
receptive to say: ``Get rid of the deadbeats. I don't want to support 
them.''
  But when you actually probe who is on welfare, it happens to be many 
people who want to get off. Should we provide an incentive to get off? 
Of course. Should we purge those who have been on and not seeking 
employment? Of course. But to blanket and to label all of those folks 
as individuals who are not my problem, somebody else's problem, is 
misguided, is not an example of the true spirit of America, which is to 
challenge people to be better and to give people a better opportunity.
  As the Committee on Appropriations marks up the various bills for 
fiscal year 1996, I am concerned that many programs such as education 
and housing and job training will not receive adequate funding. They 
equal investment in America.
  We can fight articulately and well for programs like defense and 
space and research, vital programs. But you cannot tell me you cannot 
imagine the value of matching that, creating the scientist through 
education that will then be at NASA, the technologist who will then be 
at the Defense Department who will help us be militarily ready. Why 
would we want to counter this young woman's opportunity and my 
wonderful dolls who are symbolic of all the children in America?
  Have you listened to some of our children talk about their hopes and 
dreams? Some youngsters today talk about their feet of living past a 
certain age, many in the inner city, some in our rural communities, 
because they are exposed, if you will, to more than we have ever been 
exposed to with respect to violence and threats against their lives. 
They are feeling that maybe they will not be able to get to come up to 
this young lady's stage in life, happy, graduating from high school, 
looking for a dream.
  I understand that it is the ``in'' thing to talk about the other 
fellow. The Republican majority has produced a document they call 
Cutting Government. There is not a one of us who would not sit down to 
the table of reason and talk about downsizing, talk about making 
government efficient.
  You know what the real dream is and the real focus? You should have a 
plan behind cutting, not a mishmash of scissors, going here and going 
there. I believe in a lock box. If we save some dollars, there is an 
opportunity to put it in a lock box for deficit reduction. But let us 
not lose our dream, our path, the hope that we give to these young 
people.
  The document proposes to eliminate three Cabinet departments, this 
Cutting Government document, 284 programs and 69 commissions and 13 
agencies, some of which we can get along without, many of which have 
made it through their time period of survival or purpose.
  But yet if we look seriously and honestly about where we want to go 
in this Nation in the 21st century, we would be appalled at the cost 
cutting in vocational job training. We would be literally appalled at 
the programs for Goals 2000. We would be literally overly overwhelmed, 
if you will, by the proposals that would undermine the role of 
Government, giving hope to those who would seek hope.
  These proposals do not represent budgetary surgery with intelligent 
scalpel-like precision. Instead, Mr. Speaker, these goals are 
tantamount to crafting a fiscal policy with a meat cleaver.
  Some people would say, well, these only impact on these soft 
programs. But when you cut housing, when you cut veterans' benefits, 
when you go into the infrastructure and cut transportation dollars, you 
are literally turning the clock back.
  You might have heard some years ago the commitment of this Government 
to rebuild America. Many of you may have read in your local newspapers 
about the pending or the possibility of a recession. That is why I am 
hopeful, with the President's budget, that it is another opportunity 
for discussion of the best way to go.
  It does not take us away from a balanced budget. It simply provides a 
reason and rationale for moving forward a little slowly in a 10-year 
period. I would simply say to you that it is important that we rebuild 
the highways of America, the bridges of America, the infrastructure 
work of America.
  We are finding out that, as we have come under the
   Clean Water Act, and the Clean Air Act as well but particularly the 
Clean Water Act, many of our local communities find themselves with 
impure water, bad sewer conditions, and not able to enjoy the quality 
of life we would like for Americans.

  Did you read recently the report from the Center for Communicable 
Diseases told most Americans, ``Boil your water before you drink it''? 
Someone would say, ``Are you sure you didn't see that in the paper back 
in the 1800's?'' No, we saw that today.
  It is extremely important that we not take short shrift to the role 
Government can play. Let me simply share with you as we begin to look 
at how we can be more successful in focusing in a more reasoned manner 
in dealing with some of these issues.
  I am a strong supporter of the defense of this Nation and of course, 
as I said, military readiness. That is a theme that everyone likes to 
promote and I think it is important. We want our young men and women, 
our enlisted men and women, to be secure and protected and prepared.
  However, I am also concerned about families, children and the 
elderly. They, too, need our help as a partner. Let us not take the 
ugly way out, the castigating, the throwing stones, ``It's not my 
fault,'' ``I don't care about innocent children if the bums want to be 
on welfare.''
  Yes, I am reiterating this because I think it is tragic, because 
Americans have always been individuals that have risen to the 
challenge. But as we look at this budget chart, we show the budget 
allocations for 1996, and I ask you to pay particular attention to the 
deep reductions in Transportation, Labor, Health and Human Services, 
Education, VA, and HUD appropriations.
  Do you know what some of those HUD appropriations are all about? 
Well, it takes some of the folk that many of you see under the bridges, 
some who can be redeemed, some of the homeless folk under the McKinney 
Act we were providing and going at full steam ahead to house 
individuals and begin to turn them away from the mindset of 
homelessness.
  I know it well, for when I served in the city of Houston on its local 
city council, I began to craft for that city a formula for working with 
its city's homeless, maybe about 10,000. There were many naysayers: 
``You can't do anything with them. They like living under the 
bridges.'' But when we began to look, they were families, some of whom 
were living from paycheck to paycheck and because of some tragedy in 
the household, they were made homeless.
  Let me tell you, we have turned that problem around. We have got folk 
housed in what we call transitional housing. We have got the private 
sector working with us. We have a downtown corporate community actively 
engaged in helping the homeless, and we are getting folk off of the 
homeless rolls, back into housing and being able to work as much as 
they want to work. [[Page H 6262]] 
  It is my challenge that we cannot abide by such draconian cuts and a 
withdrawal from investment in the future. We must be considerate and 
thoughtful.
  When we look at these cuts and we see that it has been reduced, as I 
have said, by $9.8 billion, look very carefully at what we are going 
after. We are hurting cities. Cities are in fact the bastion, if you 
will, the heart and soul of civilization. Rome likes to think that, but 
cities are in fact where people are energized.
  Let me include rural America, as well, because as I talk to my 
colleagues from rural America, they assure me that many of the ills 
that confront us in cities are there in rural America, and they need 
help with AIDS, they need help with housing for the homeless, they need 
help with health reform and health care, for I sat on a committee in 
the State of Texas, and it appalled me to see the number of rural 
hospitals closing because of the inability to fund indigent patients in 
rural America.
  Can we stand for that? We can stand for more fiscally responsible 
health reform. We can be assured that we do the right thing and don't 
have people abusing the system. But can we have hospitals closing 
because we are in the budget-cutting business?
  Mr. Speaker, what this evidences is the fact that we have forgotten 
our direction. We have forgotten the future of America.
  I see my colleague from Illinois and I know how hard he has worked on 
many of these issues. In fact, he comes from a district that has called 
upon him to be of great service in this battle, and he has fought not 
for his single issues but he has fought for Americans.
  I am very proud to yield to the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Durbin].
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentlewoman from Texas 
for taking this special order.
 I was back in my office going through my mail and I listened to her, 
and I said I want to come by and join my friend from Texas, because her 
message is my message. When you told the story about the college 
student loans, that touches me very, very deeply.

  I was a recipient of Federal college student loans. My father passed 
away when I was a sophomore in high school. My mother was a payroll 
clerk for a railroad. We literally did not have the savings or 
resources to take care of my college education.
  My mother and father had made it through the eighth grade. That was 
the extent of their education. They of course hoped I would do better, 
as every parent does. But when the time came to pay for those college 
expenses, I took a job, as every student would, and worked during the 
school year and during the summer months, and it just was not enough.
  I got a little scholarship assistance here and there, but frankly had 
to turn to the U.S. Federal Government and something called the 
National Defense Education Act, that loaned me the money necessary to 
complete college and law school. It came to a grand total back in the 
1960's of $7,500, which I thought was a mountain of debt I would never 
get out from under. Yet my wife and I worked and paid it off as we 
promised we would, so that younger kids behind us could have their 
opportunity.
  When I listen to the proposals for budget deficit reduction from many 
of our friends among the Gingrich Republicans that suggest that we need 
to cut back on college student loans, that suggest we need to make the 
expense of a college education that much more for kids from working 
families, I think many of them have forgotten where they came from. 
They have forgotten that at a time in their life, this Government, this 
Nation, reached out a helping hand to them and was paid back in a great 
measure because for each of them who got that helping hand, there was 
an education, an opportunity, and I guess an opportunity to contribute 
to America, not only as a Member of Congress but in business and in so 
many different areas.
  It seems to me so shortsighted for us to be cutting back on college 
student loans. I sincerely hope that my colleagues on both sides of the 
aisle will remember how significant this is.
  If I might mention one other point along these lines, 75 percent of 
the young people who graduate from high school are not going to end up 
graduating from college. They are going to go out in the work force 
looking for good-paying jobs. They will need other types of assistance, 
job training, to make sure that they are qualified for good-paying 
jobs.
  I worry, too, as the gentlewoman points out the cutbacks that we are 
making in training and employment programs. She and I will be the first 
in line to suggest we need to modernize those programs, make them 
better.
  I would commend to my friend from Texas, if she has not read it, a 
book by Hedrick Smith entitled ``Rethinking America,'' where he 
basically compares the educational systems in Germany, in Japan, and in 
the United States, and shows some real deficiencies in our system that 
need to be corrected. But we also have to understand that in those 
countries that are successful in taking kids right out of high school, 
putting them into good-paying jobs, career jobs, they have made a 
massive investment in training and education that is important to them.
  Last week we had a debate here on a defense authorization bill, a 
question about building multibillion-dollar bombers.
                              {time}  1900

  Let me tell you, I think a few less bombers and a few more dollars 
spent on education and training would go a long way for a much more 
secure America in the future. The gentlewoman is right on track here, 
and I thank her for her leadership in this special order, and I will 
continue to stay here and join in, if I can, as she raises issues of 
mutual concern.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE. I thank the gentleman for his very, very kind 
comments but as well very, very pointed comments. He has taken me back 
for a moment. If I may have the gentleman indulge me just a moment, 
sometimes when you come to share, you are so busy focusing on numbers 
that you do not put the face on who may be impacted, and he took me 
back to my early years, and I think it is important because, let us be 
very frank, we are somewhat different. I think that is the face of 
America. It is important to realize that as the gentleman's history 
was, so was my history. I remember being the first to go to college in 
my family. Hardworking parents, their main goal was to make sure their 
children had a better opportunity and the time came for college and, of 
course, was I even then going to college, much less did we have funding 
to do so. Lo and behold came this opportunity for financial aid through 
and by a scholarship and grant and loan. The gentleman is right. The 
numbers seemed enormous at that time because I had them in college as 
he did and fortunately was able to go forth out of college and then 
decided, being inspired and really viewing America as a place that is a 
place of special aspirations, as I have mentioned, to go on to law 
school. Those numbers seemed enormous, but I think as the gentleman has 
said we can count those who have made good on those student loans and 
the broad brush of the problems with these programs that the Government 
involves itself in is not the way that we should go.
  I know the gentleman spent many of his days in his district in May 
and June at graduations and he actually got to talk to students I would 
imagine, as I did. Each of them I think had stars in their eyes, 
holding that diploma, being able to look for an opportunity. There was 
not a dry eye in the place. I had to talk to those parents, many of 
whom had spent their life savings and were in trouble, but they were 
there clutching that purse, clutching that diploma, and hugging that 
child to say we can work with you to make sure you go, and I know that 
there will be a little bit of change here and a little bit of change 
there, but these are hardworking people. Should I come to the U.S. 
Congress and take that dream away from them?
  The gentleman is right. What year is this: 1995 going into 1996. In 4 
years almost we will be in the 21st century. Do we want to be any less 
of a nation than Japan, and as you mentioned England and Germany and 
France and Italy, in terms of any focus they may have on work, job 
creation, and the training of our young people?
[[Page H 6263]]

  Mr. DURBIN. If the gentlewoman will yield, I would like to also 
comment we spend so much time on this floor talking about statistics 
and numbers and percentages and budget outlays, and all sorts of things 
which I am sure most of the viewers back home say, what in the world is 
that all about.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE. That is why I started out with budgets 
appropriations, authorizations.
  Mr. DURBIN. I am so glad the gentlewoman did, and I think what we 
have to do too is try to translate some of the debate here on the floor 
to the real
 lives, to the people we represent.

  If I can use an example, I went to a community college in my 
homeland, Lincoln Land Community College, to talk about the increased 
costs of college student loans from the Gingrich Republican proposals, 
and I asked the students what impact this would have on them when the 
average student will see an increase of $5,000 in the cost of their 
college education because of Gingrich Republican proposals, and a 
number of students said: This is tough, Congressman, it is tough enough 
now. We want to get out of school and get to work. We stretch out our 
education because it is so expensive, and now you tell me it is going 
to be more expensive.
  So we broke up the meeting as I started to leave and a young lady 
came up to me, an African-American lady. She said: I was a little too 
embarrassed to raise my hand, but let me tell you my story. I am a 
welfare mother, I have two children. I am coming out to this community 
college and I have a college student loan. I said, ``What are you 
studying to be?'' ``I want to be a chef. I am trying to get the courses 
and training so I can be a chef and make a good living and get off 
welfare,'' she says. ``Now you tell me it is going to cost me more for 
this college student loan.'' She looked me in the eye and said, ``What 
am I doing wrong? Why are you making it tougher.''
  We talk about welfare around here as if it is an easy thing for a 
person to get off. In many cases it might be, but sometimes it takes 
hard work. She was putting in hard work, finding somebody to watch the 
kids, going on out to school, taking the courses borrowing money to pay 
a college student loan, and community college tuition is pretty low, 
but she did not have it and had to borrow it, and now we are telling 
her it is going to be more expensive for her to try to get off welfare 
and go to work and have some personal responsibility. I think we have 
to remember some people like her around this country who are behind 
these statistics and standing behind these budgetary names. I think you 
have pointed it out here, and there are so many other areas too that we 
ought to be addressing.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE. You tell her she need not be ashamed because I 
confronted her sister, who happened to be a white woman in Houston with 
two children who came up to me, how ironic, and said the very same 
thing and looked almost panicked because she was trying to grapple with 
and understand was I telling her tomorrow she would not have a student 
loan, but certainly expressing a fear because she too was leaping into 
the arena of independence.
  The gentleman remembers how vigorously we worked as Democrats for 
real welfare reform. He remembers how vigorously we argued against 
welfare punishment and what was the deal? Work was the cornerstone of 
that proposal. It was again an investment back into America and 
Americans so that we would take less people into the 21st century on 
welfare. How proud we could be as a nation to be able to go into the 
21st century and look back on real welfare reform that had welfare, job 
training, child care and health care, and a work element to it. How 
proud we would have been. How much we could have pointed to what the 
Government would have been able to say, not that it dominated, not that 
it took over, not that it spent too much, but it partnershiped with the 
States and local government to get masses of people off of welfare and 
to be working Americans in the 21st Century.
  Mr. DURBIN. If the gentlewoman would yield, I think what we 
determined during the course of that debate on welfare, we analyzed on 
the Democratic side
 and the Republicans did it on their side, and I think frankly we 
understood the parameters of welfare. Certainly there are people on 
welfare as there are people in business and in other walks of life who 
are going to try to take advantage of the system and game the system 
and stay on as long as they can. But I am impressed by how many people 
we meet who want to get off this welfare tangle. They really want to do 
something with their lives, and we have to decide whether as a nation 
we will invest in them and their future. And that investment is 
training, it is education, it is transportation, it is day care, it is 
some health care assistance for them during this period of time.

  But think about it, if we do not do it, if we just leave that person 
in the depths of despair, stuck on welfare, hopeless, they are not only 
a drain on society, they have lost their own self-worth, and they 
really do not have a chance to succeed. So what we tried to do on the 
Democratic side was say all right, we will draw the line. You cannot be 
on welfare forever, but for goodness' sakes let us have a goal for each 
person. Let us move from welfare to work. Let us make people productive 
citizens in America today. That is an investment that will pay off for 
a long time to come. It is one we made after World War II.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE. Clearly did.
  Mr. DURBIN. We said to the returning veterans, we really invested in 
you as soldiers and sailors and airmen, and now we are going to invest 
in you as American citizens and your families, and boy, did it pay off.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE. What a boom in the fifties, was it not?
  Mr. DURBIN. The greatest growth in the size of America's middle class 
in our history. We may never rival it again. I hope we do some day. But 
the country said as a nation our biggest and most important resource is 
our people, and these veterans and their families are an investment we 
are going to hold very dearly when it comes to their education and 
housing and businesses.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE. The gentleman raises, if I can move to two other 
issues that he reminded me of, and goes to the issue of investment and 
partnership. I think what we did when the veterans came back was 
actually the Government being affirmative, but it was a partnership. It 
was to give those returning veterans a leg up, and they got their leg 
up. They made good on their investment in terms of having served time. 
If they got some loans or some other governmental help, they became 
working Americans. They built all of the kind of tract houses 
throughout this Nation, but they became homeowners, taxpayers, and they 
raised their families.
  The gentleman talked about how he had to work his way through, and 
most of us did, with that summer job or some kind of job. Interestingly 
enough many of us rose to the floor of the House to fight vigorously 
against cutting our kids, cutting them off from summer work.
  Somebody made a lot of loose jokes about this baby-sitting camp, they 
are standing around. I made it my business to go back home and to 
reintroduce myself, if you will, because I have had youngsters work in 
my office in summer jobs, and I can tell you I did not see anyone being 
baby sat, if you will.
  I tell you one personal story of a youngster, I will never forget 
her, came from a different background, was a recent immigrant of some 
years, family is now naturalized, Vietnamese, and called back
 one day after she was hired and said, ``Ma'am, I think I won't be able 
to come.'' We kind of calmed her down a little bit and prodded a little 
bit, and she said, ``I don't have the right clothes.'' We said whatever 
you have, we kind of tried to make it light, said if you have a paper 
bag, come on to our office. But that young lady was concerned she did 
not even have the clothes to come sit in an office. She worked harder 
than any other young intern during that summer. She learned something 
as well. I have heard great things about her since, graduating from 
college.

  This is not a baby-sitting program. If we have got some, we will fix 
it. No one has said not to fix those programs that are not working, but 
I can go to the city of Houston and find youngsters getting good 
skills, getting an incentive to finish high school and go on to [[Page H 
6264]] college because they have been exposed to a workplace 
relationship. I would not deny any corporate American to participate 
with us in this program. I do not think any of us said that that was 
not possible. But the Government steps in to give incentive and to 
provide and to invest dollars in a worthy manner.
  Let me add another point for your thought about this. You come from 
an urban area. What would we do without transportation? We can all 
debate on whether your urban transportation is mass transportation, 
train, rail, or someone else's bus or someone else's highway or bridge, 
but what would this Nation be? Our forefathers left the 13 Colonies and 
found a way to go west, go west, young man, young woman, to explore, 
and they got there through transportation, and of course the way they 
got there was a four-legged animal. We now today are prepared to make 
massive cuts. That is taking away from the opportunity for people to 
grow.
  I see people up here, tourists who have visited this Capitol, many of 
whom have come by the transportation that includes the highways and the 
bridges of America. We are glad that they are here. We are glad they 
have the opportunity to freely flow throughout this Nation in freedom. 
What would they think if they got to the end of one bridge having 
traveled halfway across the country and it was nothing but an open pit 
because it had collapsed because it was in such disrepair? Is that a 
focus on what is good for Americans? Is that the cleaver mentality of 
the Republican majority? Yes, it is, the meat-cleaver approach. It does 
not invest capital in Americans, in jobs, in businesses, that help us 
design and build these infrastructures that are needed for us to be the 
kind of 21st-century nation.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. Speaker, will the gentlewoman yield?
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE. I yield to the gentleman from Illinois.
  Mr. DURBIN. What we should recall too is there is nothing partisan 
about what the gentlewoman has just said. Possibly the greatest 
investment in modern times in America's infrastructure was made under a 
Republican President, President Eisenhower, who decided in the fifties 
that the United States would embark on an Interstate Highway System. It 
was unheard of. He was going to link up every corner of America through 
a modern highway system. In my part of the world, my hometown, 
Springfield, IL, is on old Route 66. It used to be the subject of a lot 
of songs and a lot of Americana. But Route 66 was replaced by 
Interstate 55, and so many other interstate systems. At the same time 
the middle class is growing after World War II with our GI bill and our 
investment, America made an investment in infrastructure that has paid 
off so handsomely for
 us. It is the greatest thing in the world when one of my communities, 
Quincy, IL, was recently designated as being on an interstate highway. 
All of a sudden now they have a chance to brag and say not only have we 
got a great highway, it is interstate standard. So you think about what 
this means to a community. If we do not keep up that investment in not 
only our highways and our bridges and our airports and ports, but in 
the people who build them, then frankly we will pay dearly in the 
future.

  I watch some of these cuts that are coming down the line here.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE. $1.1 billion in transportation, by the way.
  Mr. DURBIN. $1.1 billion, and it not only affects what I have just 
described, but it also affects mass transit. In the city of Chicago, 
for example, so many working families get on that mass transit every 
day to get down to their workplace. It is their only way to do it. They 
cannot afford to drive and park. They have to take mass transit. Now we 
are seeing massive cuts in operating assistance. So these communities 
will see the fare box go up in cost, which means that families 
struggling now to get by, husbands and wives both working hard trying 
to make ends meet, have a new added expense because of this decision to 
cut back on operating assistance. It really raises a question about 
whether we are helping the right people.
  I worry as much as the gentlewoman does that we have to help all of 
America, but I am particularly concerned about those who are struggling 
down at the bottom, those forgotten families at the bottom of the 
economic pyramid, who pay their taxes, play by the rules, and keep 
falling behind. When we see cuts in operating assistance for mass 
transit, we are not making it any easier for them to get to work.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE. If the gentleman would yield, I am glad he said that 
we are here for all Americans, because if I can get just a little bit 
feisty for a moment, I am darn mad about the accusation. I do not know 
about the gentleman. He has got Springfield and parts of Chicago. I 
know he has a corporate community, and I know he has worked with them, 
because I have worked with the corporate community in Houston.
                              {time}  1915

  Because I have worked with the corporate community in Houston and we 
have worked along the lines of making their needs come before the 
United States Congress and insure the activity for a climate that will 
create jobs and a good business climate. No one, I guess, is against 
that.
  But I think that we fail and do not reach the mark. We do not get to 
the finish line if we do not do what is good for people.
  We take that $1.1 billion away from transportation, including mass 
transportation, and Mr. and Mrs. Smith, who do not have a car or cannot 
afford the gasoline that will take them downtown on a regular basis, 
are then kept, and that is a lot of dollars, the transportation costs 
of going back and forth and maybe the youngsters are going to school on 
public transportation. It adds up, and every penny is counted in some 
families in America. You know, 14 million of the families in America 
earn under $10,000 a year, and so what we have is a situation where we 
are turning around and slicing ourselves in the wrong place because we 
are not investing in Americans and giving them the opportunity to go to 
that workplace and be part of the system.
  And so I do not take very lightly any suggestions that the climate 
for business has not been good when Democrats have been in, because I 
think we have not come this far for them to be able to achieve in the 
best Nation in the world for the kinds of corporations that we have. 
They have enjoyed the bounty of this Nation.
  And yet we now come to a point where we may undermine that very 
structure that they have, the talent, and the trained employees that I 
have had corporate executives tell me they depend on. They wonder where 
the trained workers will come from for the 21st century. We are cutting 
transportation for them to get there, and we are aimed, for cutting, if 
you will, the training for them, but yet I think, you know, this issue, 
we still have a billionaire tax loophole. We allow those folks to enjoy 
the bounty of this Nation. That means that they enjoy the green lands, 
the wonderful capital. I heard one colleague tell me what the 
percentage of what we are invested in America, what each of us owns. We 
are millionaires, to be certain, about what we own in this Government, 
and yet those individuals will enjoy the bounty, all of this goodness, 
and then have to abdicate their citizenship and live somewhere else 
where they will not pay taxes. They are billionaires, and we are losing 
about $3.5 billion a year.
  Mr. DURBIN. The gentlewoman makes an important point. Most people may 
have missed it. There was a television special about folks who became 
so rich that in order to avoid paying Federal taxes, they renounced 
their citizenship, and by renouncing their citizenship and becoming 
citizens of some other country, they avoided their Federal tax 
liability, so they used our Nation, they used our resources, they used 
our people, they filled up their bank account, and then they skipped 
town, and what we have been trying to do, actually skipped the country, 
what we have been trying to do here is to change that and to say that 
is all over. If you owe the Federal Government of the United States 
taxes and you have made a profit in doing it simply by renouncing your 
citizenship, we are not letting you off the hook. I am sorry we could 
not get our colleagues on the other side of the aisle to join us in 
this effort.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE. Repeatedly we have tried, have we not?
  [[Page H 6265]]
  
  Mr. DURBIN. We tried it several times. It strikes me as eminently 
sensible if a person earned his or her fortune in this country, they 
should not be able to get off the hook and escape the tax liability. 
These families getting on the mass transit every day in your hometown 
and the city of Chicago, they are paying their taxes. It is coming 
right out of their paycheck. They never think about renouncing their 
citizenship. They are proud of their country.
  I am sure they get a little catch in their throat at the ``Star 
Spangled Banner'' and watching the flag.
  Here we are protecting these folks who would walk away from America. 
That does not make any sense whatsoever.
  I sincerely hope we can address this in the near term because it is 
really a loophole in the Tax Code that must be changed.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE. Let me just draw you, as we begin to conclude on 
where we are trying to take this Nation, because I believe what has 
been misunderstood, as I have understood it, I have worked hard to be a 
part of the process, is that we have solutions. We did not totally 
ignore a tax cut. We had a reasoned
 tax cut for citizens making under $75,000.

  There are solutions that can be bipartisan. We, as Democrats, looked 
at whether or not any citizen making over $200,000 need a tax cut. I 
have had them tell me they do not need it.
  And so the tax cut that was offered, a fair one, I might add, really 
spoke to the issue of getting to those working families.
  Mr. DURBIN. I just will ask the gentlewoman to yield so it is clear 
the tax cut package the Democrats support was for families making 
$75,000 a year and less.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE. That is correct.
  Mr. DURBIN. The tax break package supported under the Gingrich 
Republican contract actually gives tax breaks to families making 
$200,000 a year and more. A family could be making $4,000 a week and 
qualify for the Gingrich Republican contract tax break, and I think the 
gentlewoman makes an important point here. We ought to focus on helping 
people who ready need it.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE. We had a plan. I think that is what is important.
  The other difficulty that I have is that many of the rescissions, 
remember I started out saying rescissions, budget, authorizations, 
appropriations but many of the rescissions, taking away money, was not 
even to place it with a focus, to help us move into the 21st century, 
maybe giving some more money to education. Those cuts they were doing 
was to give these people making over $200,000 more money, and not 
really focus on transportation, on military construction, or dealing 
with the training program or having a real welfare reform package. That 
is the exasperation.
  That is what I think the American people need to understand. There is 
not a lot of talk here without action. We worked on real packages that, 
if accepted, would have been a fair bipartisan approach to this whole 
idea of, one, reducing the deficit, having a balanced budget over a 
period of years, which I think many of us may agree with, but we want 
to have focus and direction and we want to protect the working families 
of America.
  We could not strike that chord, that unifying chord. What we actually 
had were pages and pages of cuts going to the very heart of veterans, 
like our good friend who is not a veteran but certainly our hero we had 
in Bosnia. He came back. We all praised him. Why were we praising him? 
Because he had the training, the training to know what to do. He saved 
himself, and he made us proud of America.
  All through here are cuts that would impact on some aspects of what 
happened with that young man, who is a hero, aspects on his early 
education, training, secondary education, high school, college, impact 
on housing on those who are trying to get job training, all of these, a 
myriad of cuts.
  I do not think anybody paid any attention to what they were 
impacting. They just got lists.
  Mr. DURBIN. That point is an important one. The question is whether 
or not we have to make cuts to balance the budget. The answer is 
``yes.'' The question is: Should we make more cuts in order to give a 
tax break to wealthy people and to profitable corporations?
  What the Republicans proposed in their Contract on America was a 
package of about $350 billion in tax breaks. That meant, in order to 
move toward a balanced budget, we had to cut another $350 billion in 
spending on other programs, and we are down to the point now, there is 
still waste we can find, we are also finding they are proposing cuts in 
education and health care and things so critically essential to our 
Nation.
  So does it make sense to cut a college student loan in order to give 
a tax break to somebody making $200,000 a year? That is upside down.
  If we have limited resources, focus it on the people who need it.
  What we said in our tax cut package was let us focus it, for example, 
on families that want to deduct the cost of college education for their 
kid. That is sensible. That says let them put together a little account 
for their kids' college education and get some favorable tax treatment 
as a result of it. That is a good investment all around, families doing 
the right thing for their son or daughter, the son or daughter gets a 
chance of an education, and the tax code is basically giving them 
incentive instead of for the person making $4,000 a week, handing them 
a tax break which they will never even notice.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE. I have had many say this is not the time for that 
income level to receive one. I have had them actually say that. I 
appreciate the employer or a constituent who would say they are 
concerned about the deficit, they do want to ensure they have got the 
kind of youngsters trained and other adults who need retraining, by the 
way.
  Let me speak just a moment to something that is somewhat unpopular. 
That is what we are going to be facing as foreign aid. I know many of 
our citizens claim a great opposition to that.
  What is the direction of the Republican Party, to cut aid to 
developing nations, that they want to get off, if you will, the 
dependence that they have on this Nation? And I support that.
  And so some of the programs that help independence, humanitarian aid; 
I do not want to call any particular countries, but in particular to 
Africa where you are able to ensure that these individuals can stop 
coming to the United States, and that is where we all want to be. We 
want to see a world that is standing on its own two feet, that has 
people working, that has a country that stands up for helping their 
economic development.
  We do not know how that vote is going to come out, but what I have 
seen to date, it seems that they have taken the ax again, or the 
cleaver, to programs that would allow those small countries to be 
independent, and I think we do the wrong thing when we think taking 
dollars away, because we do not know if those countries will fall then 
to some misguided political philosophy, because they have not had the 
opportunity, not to get a fish from us, but for us to teach them how to 
fish and to be able to go ongoing into the 21st century to be 
independent.
  Mr. DURBIN. Foreign aid is not popular in any quarter in America. 
People are very upset about it. Many do not understand it. Sometimes it 
is humanitarian in nature.
  We have seen these heart-rending pictures of people who are literally 
starving to death, mothers holding their children as they starve to 
death in their arms, and we sense as Americans a feeling of compassion 
and caring to come and provide our extra bounty so that they do not die 
literally in the dust covered with flies. That is what America has 
always been about, we have always stood for.
  I will tell you an area of foreign aid the gentlewoman would agree 
with me on, and we really ought to take a look, and I am afraid we have 
not. That is military foreign aid. When it comes to sending our 
millions and often billions of dollars overseas to protect Germany and 
Japan, this Member has a real problem. Here we are, 50 years after 
World War II, and we are still defending Japan? For goodness sakes, 
these folks are cleaning our clock when it comes to the trade account. 
They ship all of their products here. They have a trade surplus with 
the United States, and we are sending millions of dollars [[Page H 
6266]] overseas for troops and ships and planes to protect Japan?
  The same thing is true in Europe. For goodness sakes, now, the Berlin 
Wall is down. The cold war is over, and we still defend Europe 50 years 
later, while the Germans are investing and uniting their country and 
educating their work force, making better products, a higher, I might 
say, standard of living, unfortunately, than the United States, in many 
areas. That is military foreign aid which we tried to address on this 
floor in the name of burdensharing, saying to our allies, ``It is about 
time you share this burden that we have carried for 50 years in this 
country.''
  But many of our friends who are the first to say they hate foreign 
aid would not even consider touching this military foreign aid which 
costs us so dearly.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE. That is why I wanted to spend some time on 
solutions, because what comes out of the media and what trickles down 
to constituents is what are the solutions. We have had solutions.
  What you have just talked about, yes, I join you on that. It made 
perfect sense, reasoned, logical planning of what we want this Nation 
to look like in the 21st century.
  We all applauded the 50th-year celebration this past spring that we 
had celebrating the great coming together and the great victories we 
had in Europe in World War II. We celebrated, we embraced it, we went 
back to salute the heroes, they saluted us. We are in sync. We are 
committed to each other, Europe and Japan.
  But the question is, the question becomes a very commonsense proposal 
that do we want to continue to pay for military, and it leads very 
well, as we move to July 4, what we are doing to our veterans.
  It makes sense. We sit down to the bargaining table, we work out a 
process, we say if you get in jeopardy, we come to the table, we come 
and rise to the occasion.
  But during peacetime, to continue to pay, time after time after time 
after time, over and over again, dollars to a peacetime relationship, 
it seems to me that you are not investing your money right. You are not 
making the right decision. It is not saying that we are isolationists 
or moving away from the international role that we need to have, 
because I support that.
  I think America needs to be strong. I think we need to be there for 
our allies, but it makes no sense, to me, cutting veterans' benefits, 
having seniors come to me who are veterans saying that they are losing 
their benefits in health care, as someone has told them, because they 
have got to cut costs. These are people giving almost the extent of 
their life, and we are grateful they did not lose it, to this country, 
and yet we are cutting the very benefits of those who are in need.
  We do not know what we may face in Desert Storm or what we may 
continue to face with Agent Orange with Vietnam veterans and others, 
and we need to ensure that we pay both our respects, like we like to do 
on these holidays, of which I join my veterans on Memorial Day, but we 
must show them, as we celebrate July 4, the founding of this Nation, 
and what we stand for, that we respect and appreciate them.
  Why are we still taking care of the military overseas for other 
nations?
  Mr. DURBIN. One of the things that I think is significant, and most 
Americans are not aware of this fact, is that we will spend about $270 
billion in the next fiscal year on our military. I often ask in my town 
meetings if anybody in the audience knows which country in the world is 
No. 2 in military spending and how much they spend.
  Well, most do not know, and it is almost a tie between Great Britain 
and France. Each of them spend about $45 billion a year, one-sixth of 
the amount that the United States spends, and yet despite all of this 
expenditure, $270 billion, six times more than any other nation in the 
world, we still have soldiers and sailors on food stamps.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE. They are not being paid enough in the service not to 
qualify for food stamps; still, their income is too low.
  So the quality of life for men and women in the service is being 
sacrificed at a time when they are our most important investment. We 
put money into these weapons, billions and billions of dollars, and 
overlook the most important weapons system, the men and women giving 
their lives and their time to serve in our American military.

                              {time}  1930

  Ms. JACKSON-LEE. As exhibited by the captain that was so heroic in 
this last month in terms of his coming out of Bosnia.
  Mr. DURBIN. Lieutenant O'Grady.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE. Yes.
  Mr. DURBIN. I like him a lot. I think all of America fell for this 
fellow, because he came out and it does us proud to have fellow who has 
come through such terrible ordeal and who says, ``Don't give me credit. 
Give the credit to the rescuers. I was acting like a bunny, hiding in 
the bushes.'' But when he tells his story, we know it took a lot of 
guts and bravery for him to make it through that.
  There are many more like him in the service, and thank God there are. 
They deserve first-class treatment. And instead of building these 
weapons system that cost so much money like star wars, we have put $40 
billion in star wars, this Ronald Reagan concept that is going to 
protect the United States. We have little or nothing to show for it. 
And now our friends on the Republican side say, let us spend another 
$30 billion and see what we can find.
  I say put the money in defending this country and
   making sure that the people who serve in the service are treated 
with respect and dignity.

  Ms. JACKSON-LEE. If the gentleman will yield, I tried to elevate the 
young man to captain, but maybe because I was so impressed with his 
demeanor and how he presented himself to the American people.
  Which reminds me of one of my invitations to visit 6,000 men and 
women on one of our nuclear submarines. And, really, the most 
impressive part of it was the young men and women. Particularly the 
young men; I think this was a ship that did not yet have young women on 
the ship.
  In any event, in addition to seeing the expertise that they had, I 
got some personal stories as well. And I think you realize that those 
who are on submarine duty are out 6 months or so at a time and they 
leave their families back home.
  And one in particular came up to me and mentioned that he was a 
single father with two girls who were living with the grandmother. And 
he pleaded with me about the need for a higher salary, because his 
youngsters were probably on food stamps with his mother who was taking 
care of them. He did not see them on a regular basis and he was 
struggling to make ends meet. But he was trying to be a good father and 
a good parent.
  That breaks your heart when you hear those kinds of stories, because 
you know when we call upon him, if anything was to happen and he had to 
risk his life for us, for Americans, he would be right there to do it. 
I would hesitate to have him have on his mind the needs of his 
children. And they do.
  The same thing with housing for our enlisted men and women. I again 
will bring up veterans. The same thing with facilities for veterans. 
Why would we want to put them through that? Where is the focus? Where 
is us capturing the aspirations of Americans?
  Let me add one other thing. I am wearing this little patch because I 
was today with the physically challenged. And they are out supporting 
the Americans with Disabilities Act, which will be impacted by many of 
these cuts, because as you realize, the act requires modification.
  And these folks were not here asking for handouts. They were not here 
whining about their condition. They were here in full force. They came 
from across the country; many of them in different challenged 
conditions, but yet they got here saying,
 We just want a chance.

  I promised them today in front of the U.S. Capitol that I will give 
them a chance and that is what we are missing out here. We are not 
giving Americans a chance.
  I yield to the gentleman from Illinois.
  Mr. DURBIN. If the gentlewoman will yield, I had a presentation last 
Monday in my hometown of Springfield, IL, at the Land of Lincoln 
Goodwill Industries. They have been accredited for their rehabilitation 
activity and they take a lot of people facing [[Page H 6267]] physical 
and mental challenges and them to work in good jobs. They pay them a 
modest amount of income, but really turn their lives around.
  I visited a license plate factory in Decatur, IL, several years ago 
and the administrator told me a story. She pointed to a young woman who 
was working on the assembly line for these license plates and said, 
``When she first came to this facility we literally carried her in. She 
was considered to be an impossible case; never capable of doing a 
thing. We trained her and stuck with her. You know what the problem is 
now, Congressman? When we have a big snowstorm and I want to close down 
this factory, I know she is going to show up anyway. She feels so 
dedicated to the job.''
  Many people with these challenges and disabilities just need a 
chance. And the Government comes through with that chance, giving them 
a helping hand so they can be productive and have real lives.
  Your commitment is one I share. And I really fear that the disabled 
will be the first casualties of these budget cuts and it would be sad 
for the future of our country if that occurs.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE. I think your fears are well founded. They indicated 
they felt concern about the education act that related particularly to 
the mentally and physically challenged, the Americans with Disabilities 
Act, the SSI, and Medicare and Medicaid which they depend upon.
  And what I started out saying, sometimes we think it is in to talk 
about folk like that. Articles in newspapers or letters to the editor 
saying, Sorry, I am not going to feel guilty. These people are 
deadbeats that are on welfare.
  But let me tell you that out of that session I had today in front of 
U.S. Capitol came a young woman who said, ``I was an architect, but 
after a
 tragic car accident and brain injury I am here today to say I just 
need a chance.''

  We had a good time out there. A few tears were shed. Because I think 
Americans need to realize that people who find themselves in these 
conditions, physically challenged, mentally challenged, are not just 
the other guy that you might see that unfortunately was born that way, 
but many of us in life's journey may come upon these hard times, 
whether it is a tragic accident, but we live, and we thank God for 
that, but it may be leaving us in a condition where we need the kind of 
support that this training program could give or SSI could give.
  And I have heard some really, I think, thoughtless comments that some 
mothers are misrepresenting on forms so that a child could be listed as 
autistic. I do not know if anyone has seen an autistic child. I do not 
think that any parent would go to that length to be able to label the 
child autistic, just to be on SSI.
  I have seen real life cases. And we need to really invest in the 
American people and the cases that we have seen before us for the 
future of this Nation.
  Mr. DURBIN. I noticed, too, in my own district, a young lady who was 
a single mother with two children and one suffered from a severe 
learning disability. She was able to continue to go to work, and 
continue to make money to help raise her family, because of the 
assistance she received from the Government.
  And they asked her in this interview, What are you going to do if you 
do not receive that assistance? And she said, ``It is hopeless for me. 
I would have to stay home and take care of my child. I would not be 
able to work.''
  At a time when we are trying to reduce welfare dependency, she is 
doing the right thing. She is facing a challenge that many of us would 
wither under and doing the right thing. And we are giving her a helping 
hand for that purpose.
  I would hate to see us turn that hand and slap her and say, No, now 
you're on your own. Show us how you can do it personally without our 
help, because we know that just a little bit of help has made a 
significant difference in her family's future.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE. I don't know what the answer would be for that young 
woman, and that is why I am trying to get this clear message that we 
need a focus
 and a direction; that none of us are apart on the fact that we want 
the Nation to be strong with a strong bottom line, moving toward 
deficit reduction.

  But where is the focus? Today I happen to have voted against the 
congressional appropriations bill. I did that because I would almost 
imagine we could cut a little bit more. But I will say the direction 
was wrong.
  Here they were, as I see tourists coming to this Nation and this 
Capital represents so much good. The Botanical Gardens, which needed 
some enhancement, we get someone on the other side of the aisle, a 
Republican, who wants to cut the flowers out from Americans.
  That is the kind of misguided direction. It does not mean we cannot 
come to some conclusion about cutting the budget. But I would think 
that if you asked an average American if they enjoy a botanical garden 
where flowers grow and enhance the beauty of this Capital, whether or 
not the few pennies that were going to be saved, and I can tell them it 
was a few pennies that would be saved, or whether or not that was worth 
it.
  What happened? No focus. Just a haphazard approach. Everybody with a 
meat cleaver. Me, me, me. I want to be the one that cuts. So, I think 
it is very important that we place the American people first. That we 
ensure that we understand what the Constitution says, but more 
importantly what the Declaration of Independence said; we are all 
created equal with certain inalienable rights. And that equality is a 
promise to Americans and a promise of job opportunity.
  And I might add just a note, it is a promise to those of us who came 
from different locales and look differently. And that is why I think 
affirmative action is something that Americans need to understand. It 
is not a negative; it is an even playing field.
  What we should say to Americans is: Understand that Democrats have 
solutions. We have solutions. Your Member has a solution. I have a 
solution for the 18th Congressional District. I do not want the State 
of Texas to lose $1.1 billion in rescissions and not go back to any 
deficit reduction, but go to tax cuts for those making over $200,000.
  What I want is a plan; a plan to invest in America. Those investments 
would count for
 infrastructure, for education, for housing, for energy development, 
for space development for some of us who are interested in making sure 
we are at the high technological cutting edge for the 21st century. It 
has to be, I believe, an investment.

                          ____________________