[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 100 (Tuesday, July 9, 1996)]
[House]
[Pages H7143-H7149]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                              {time}  1630
  THE FAMILIES FIRST AGENDA AND A FURTHER DISCUSSION ON SUPREME COURT 
                        JUSTICE CLARENCE THOMAS

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Shaw). Under the Speaker's announced 
policy of May 12, 1995, the gentleman from New York [Mr. Owens] is 
recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the minority leader.
  Mr. OWENS. Mr. Speaker, I would like to talk today about the families 
first agenda of the Democrats, recently announced. Of course we have 
between now and November to really get to understand and fully digest 
what this agenda is all about, but I am very excited about it because 
it does crystallize and place in one package some of the very important 
points that I have been trying to get across for the last 18 months.
  I think the families first agenda is a good statement as to what is 
most important that is going on here in Washington at this point. It 
talks about what is happening with working families and workers in the 
workplace and what we need to do to deal with guaranteeing that we 
place families first by seeing to it that working families have an 
opportunity to survive with dignity and that people in the workplace 
have a fair chance to make a living. That is one very important part of 
it. Another part of the families first agenda, of course, deals with 
education. Nothing is more important than education at this particular 
point in the history of this Nation.
  We are in a critical transition period. This is a period where high 
tech know-how has taken over. It is a period where skills that were 
relevant and useful and could command a great price in the marketplace 
30, 40 years ago are no longer able to command that price. For that 
reason we have a great gap in our income structure, and more and more 
people are sinking to lower and lower levels in terms of their income 
while the country is really prospering and a handful of people are 
getting richer and richer. The families first agenda was developed by 
the Democratic Caucus under the leadership of Minority Leader Gephardt. 
I think he did a great job, and we certainly would expect from 
Democrats that kind of agenda.
  I want to start by indicating that there is an editorial that 
appeared in the Atlanta Constitution that was not developed by 
Democrats, was not developed by the Democratic Caucus. In fact I do not 
think you could ever accuse the Atlanta Constitution of being a group 
of wild-eyed liberals. This editorial, I think, could very well be an 
introduction to the families first agenda. The families first agenda 
could benefit greatly from this editorial, which is labeled the 
``Shrinking Middle Class.'' It appeared in the Atlanta Constitution of 
Friday, June 21. I am going to talk about this editorial and then move 
into the families first agenda.
  Before I do that, I did want to make a few comments about the topic 
that I discussed just before we adjourned for the July 4th holiday. I 
got a lot of comments as a result of my last 60-minute presentation. I 
talked at that time about another subject which was close to education, 
educating children. I used the situation with respect to Clarence 
Thomas, Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas who has been the focus of 
a controversy in Prince George's County. There were some board members 
of the local school board who objected to Justice Thomas addressing a 
group of youngsters who were receiving awards.
  Prince George's County and this particular school in particular is 
predominantly black, overwhelmingly black. The board member, Mr. 
Kenneth Johnson, had raised the issue of considering the kinds of 
positions that Justice Thomas has taken, which have hurt black people 
so much, have hurt the African-Americans in this country so very much, 
should he be allowed to come to a school of predominantly black 
children and not have a situation where he could be questioned or there 
could be a discussion. Should he be allowed to come in and serve as a 
role model without anybody making any effort to see to it that 
youngsters understand that there is a controversy surrounding Mr. 
Thomas which definitely impacts on their lives and that you ought to 
have some different kind of format.

  I praised Mr. Johnson's action, and he was not trying to deny Supreme 
Court Justice Thomas the right to speak. He wanted a different format. 
I think it was most appropriate.
  I got a lot of criticism for that. A lot of people called in. One 
lady called in teary-eyed, saying that she never thought she would see 
the day where a black Congressman would sit on the floor of the House 
and criticize a black Supreme Court Justice. My answer to that is it is 
very difficult, I assure you, but these are very difficult times. These 
are very complex times. The world is not simple anymore with respect to 
civil rights. The fact is that everybody who fought in the civil rights 
struggle had a common goal and you had clear objectives, people were 
being denied the right to drink at water fountains. They were being 
denied hotel accommodations. They were being denied the right to take a 
job even when they were qualified for the job. They were openly 
discriminated against.
  It was all very obvious, very blatant, and we were all marching to 
the tune of one drum against these insults and against the 
disadvantages that they posed. It was much clearer. Now, you have a 
situation where people who are the beneficiaries of affirmative action, 
like Supreme Court Justice Thomas, have attacked the same affirmative 
action that he was a beneficiary of. Supreme Court Justice Thomas has 
begun to help turn back the clock on many of the progressive steps that 
were taken and made by African-Americans in this country.
  So, if he is handing down decisions which attack the Voting Rights 
Act, decisions which attack affirmative action, decisions which make 
new law and that law is very much to the disadvantage and the detriment 
of black people in general and certainly black

[[Page H7144]]

children, then I think Mr. Johnson, the school board member who raised 
the issue, has a legitimate point. This man should not be held up as a 
role model without question.
  Yes, when I was the age of these school children in the eighth grade, 
any black who achieved anything was held up as a model. Be somebody was 
a very general statement. Be somebody, achieve, rise to any level. It 
did not matter what kind of philosophy you had when you got there; 
ideology, those things were too complicated. It did not have to be 
discussed because just about any black who was a role model also was 
against segregation, they were also against discrimination.
  Things were very simple. But when you have a situation as complicated 
as the kind of decisions that have been handed down by the Supreme 
Court, certainly the latest set of decisions on the Voting Rights Act 
and then my last discussion I talked about the Voting Rights Acts 
decisions. I talked about the attack on affirmative action. I talked 
about how these kinds of actions on the top are generating a spirit of 
something to do with the kind of extremism you see acted out at the 
bottom with the burning of black churches. There is a relationship.
  These kinds of actions are radical actions being taken by the Supreme 
Court. The Voting Rights Act decisions that have been handed down by 
the Supreme Court, they break with the current law. They break with the 
trend in law. The break new ground because the general progressive 
movement forward of American law as interpreted by the Supreme Court 
has not taken the kind of positions that the Supreme Court now has 
begun to take. The Supreme Court is using the 14th amendment to justify 
striking down programs which are very much in step with what the 14th 
amendment was designed to accomplish.
  The Supreme Court leadership, the majority on the Supreme Court have 
chosen to use the 14th amendment as a battering ram to wipe out any 
legislation designed to benefit the descendants of African-American 
slaves. That is a radical departure from the way the law was being 
interpreted before.
  The Supreme Court, this majority on the Supreme Court, joined by 
Justice Thomas, also refuses to follow a simple procedure that every 
other Supreme Court and most other courts of law have held up as a very 
necessary procedure. That is to examine any law or any part of the 
Constitution and try to determine what the Founding Fathers meant at 
the time that item was placed in the Constitution or what the Congress 
meant at the time a law was passed. The intent of Congress, the intent 
of the Founding Fathers has always been one of the foundations of the 
analytical process that goes on when the law is deliberated at the 
level of the courts.

  So, the intent of the 14th amendment is very important. The fact that 
this majority has chosen to totally ignore the intent of the 14th 
amendment and use it as a battering ram to push a color-blind 
philosophy, it is an ideology, a color-blind ideology of Sandra Day 
O'Connor and the other members who join her repeatedly in insisting 
that the 14th amendment says that we must have a color-blind society, 
that has no foundation in the 14th amendment. It may be that the 
general implication of what America is all about and the Constitution 
and the Bill of Rights, everything says that we should have a color-
blind society and that is implied. But the 14th amendment certainly is 
not the place where you should ground that kind of theory. Just the 
opposite, when it comes to people who are descendants of African 
slaves. The slaves were the subject of the 14th amendment. The slaves 
were the concern of the 14th amendment.
  I had to move through this very rapidly last time. So, for the 
benefit of people who are upset about my argument, I just wanted to 
repeat it. Again, it relates to education, which I want to talk about 
later as my primary topic. It relates to the education of our children. 
Nothing is more important as history and having children understand 
history in a proper manner. Nothing is more important than having 
children understand that role models are determined not by people's 
position in the hierarchy but by what that position means, the 
philosophy of the ideology, the kind of actions that these people take.
  So to take the 14th amendment and twist it and distort it and to have 
the 14th amendment being used as a justification for wiping out the 
Voting Rights Act, to have the 14th amendment being used as a 
justification for getting rid of affirmative action, that is a heinous 
misuse and abuse of the 14th amendment. The 14th amendment was designed 
to ameliorate the crimes of slavery. It was designed to make some 
compensation for what had gone on before the 14th amendment was passed. 
The 14th amendment came right after the 13th amendment.
  Mr. Speaker, the 13th amendment freed the slaves. The 14th amendment 
dealt with guaranteeing that nobody would misunderstand that these 
slave persons have equal rights. Not all Americans have equal rights, 
all other Americans had equal rights. They have always had them under 
the Constitution. It was a new group of Americans who were being 
elevated to the point where they, too, would have equal rights. 
Originally the Constitution spoke of slaves only as three-fifths of a 
person in the counting of the populations of the States. The 
Constitution states that the slaves shall be considered three-fifths of 
a person. Well, the 14th amendment makes it clear that no longer is 
that true, that each person in the United States, a person shall 
include slaves, slaves shall be considered as persons. That was the 
primary thrust of sections 1 and 2 of the 14th amendment.
  What you have is the Supreme Court, the majority on the Supreme 
Court, the Sandra Day O'Connor majority, the Clarence Thomas and Sandra 
Day O'Connor majority insisting that only one section, in fact, one 
sentence is relevant. And that is section 1 of the 14th amendment, 
which talks about all persons born and naturalized in the United States 
and subject to the jurisdiction thereof are citizens of the United 
States and of the State wherein they reside.
  Why did the 14th amendment have to say that? It said it already in 
the Constitution before. Who were they talking about? What were they 
clarifying? When they say all persons born or naturalized, they mean a 
new group of people now that must be recognized, those people who had 
before been considered only three-fifths of a man. They now must be 
recognized as full citizens of the United States. No States shall make 
or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of 
the citizens of the United States, nor shall any State deprive any 
person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law, nor 
deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the 
laws.
  That is the part of the 14th amendment which O'Connor and Thomas and 
company insist is the basis for the establishment of a color-blind 
United States of America.

                              {time}  1645

  Well, you did not need to say that people should not be denied equal 
protection of the law. That was the case for all other people except 
slaves. Only the newly freed slaves had to be included, and the 14th 
amendment wanted to make it clear that the newly freed slaves must not 
be denied equal protection of the laws.
  Now that is section 1 of the 14th amendment. What the O'Connor-Thomas 
majority on the court ignored completely are the following: section 2, 
section 3, section 4 and section 5.
  Section 2 makes it quite clear that this 14th amendment is concerned 
primarily about slaves. Section 2 talks about Representatives shall be 
apportioned among the several States according to their respective 
numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State. This is 
section 2 of the 14th amendment.
  As I said before, the primary business of the 14th amendment is to 
rectify, to take care of, the conditions that had been created by 
slavery and the conditions that the Constitution had recognized.
  Why do you have the statement in the section 2 of the 14th amendment 
which talks about counting the whole number of persons in each State? 
Because before some persons in each State, those who were slaves, were 
not counted as a whole number. Three-fifths of a slave was counted as a 
person for the benefit of taking the census, and the census, of course, 
determines what the voting power and electoral college would be of each 
State.

[[Page H7145]]

The census would, of course, determine how many Representatives each 
State would have.
  The great compromise was to allow slaves to be counted at all. That 
is why the three-fifths number was arrived at. Section 2 in the 14th 
amendment, it goes back to make the correction, and it says you must 
count the whole number of the persons.
  It also went on to say that when the right to vote at any election 
for the choice of electors for President or Vice President, 
Representatives, in other words, for any Federal office, when the right 
for any Federal office is denied or for any State office is denied to 
these people who now are not going to be counted as three-fifths, but 
be counted as a whole, you shall have a problem if you deny anybody the 
right to vote, especially these new slaves, new citizens who were 
former slaves. You should have a problem, and your proportion in the 
House of Representatives would be reduced by the number of such male 
citizens to the male citizens of the total State. You shall have a 
reduction if you are guilty of denying the right to vote to these 
citizens.
  Why would this be included if you were not talking about a new group 
of citizens? If it is confusing, I will read the whole thing: But when 
the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for 
President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in 
Congress, the executive and judicial officers of a State, or the 
members of a legislature thereof is denied to any of the male 
inhabitants of such State being 21 years of age and citizens of the 
United States are in any way abridged except for participation in 
rebellion or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be 
reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall 
bear to the whole number of male citizens 21 years of age in such 
State. That is section 2 of the 14th amendment.
  Notice that they are concerned about denying the right to vote to one 
group of people, those who participated in rebellion or other crime are 
denied the right to vote. If you do not understand what that means, go 
on to read section 3. Section 3 is more concerned about people who 
participate in rebellion. Again I am reading this only to make the 
point that the 14th amendment was primarily concerned about the Civil 
War, the aftermath of the Civil War or the War of the Rebellion, 
whatever you want to call it, and the conditions of slaves, the freedom 
of slaves, the recognition of the freedom of slaves, the recognition of 
full citizenship for slaves, and it also wanted to make it clear that 
people who had rebelled did not have certain rights.
  The part that is totally ignored in the 14th amendment is section 3. 
No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elected 
President or Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, 
under the United States or under any State, who have not previously 
taken an oath as a Member of Congress or as a officer of the United 
States or as a member of the State legislature or as an executive or 
judicial officer of any State to support the Constitution of the United 
States and then shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against 
the same or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof; those persons 
shall not hold office except the last sentence of section 3 of the 14th 
amendment:

  But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each house remove such 
disability.
  This is part of the 14th amendment which Sandra Day O'Connor keeps 
citing as an amendment to make America colorblind. This is an amendment 
which dealt with the problems related to slavery and rebellion against 
the Government of the United States which causes civil war.
  And then finally, section 4, the validity of the public debt of the 
United States authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment 
of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or 
rebellion, shall not be questioned. This is in the 14th amendment. They 
are talking about the debts incurred in fighting the Civil War, the 
pensions owed to soldiers who fought the Civil War, who fought against 
the rebellion. They are going to clarify that the other side is not 
included in the next sentence: But neither the United States nor any 
State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid or 
insurrection, rebellion against the United States or any claim for the 
loss or emancipation of any slave. All such debts, obligations and 
claims shall be held illegal and void.
  Section 4 of the 14th amendment; if you do not understand before you 
get to section 4 that the 14th amendment is about slavery, it is about 
correcting the injustices of slavery. It is about the War of the 
Rebellion, it is about dealing with people who had rebelled, denying 
them the right to hold office, making provision for some of them to 
hold office if the Congress votes by a two-thirds vote, and it is about 
debts that were incurred in the Civil War, debts that were incurred on 
the Union side, on the side which upheld the Constitution of the United 
States, all being made legal and debts that were incurred by the people 
who were rebelling being made illegal.
  It is in the 14th amendment: Neither the United States, nor any 
State, shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid or 
insurrection, rebellion against the United States or any claim for the 
loss or emancipation of any slave. But all such debts, obligations and 
claims shall be held illegal and void.
  I am not going to go on. I do not want to refight the Civil War. My 
concern is if you want to deal with a Supreme Court that sits there and 
interprets the law and ignores more than 75 percent of the 14th 
amendment to come out with a conclusion based on one sentence in the 
first, in section 1, and say that that Supreme Court is a legitimate 
institution, that the majority there is acting in a respectable way, 
that no one should challenge what they do, that Clarence Thomas is not 
part of a conspiracy to distort the Constitution, distort the 14th 
amendment; if you want to take that position, I am trying to tell you 
you are not on sound ground.
  Those of us who challenge the majority in the Supreme Court in their 
voting rights decision based on the 14th amendment certainly have a 
legitimate argument. We certainly have a right to challenge Clarence 
Thomas, Justice Clarence Thomas, on the position that he takes on the 
voting rights amendment. When you combine that with the position he is 
taking on affirmative action, we certainly have a right to challenge 
him to be held up as a role model for black children.
  I have taken the time to do this because I got so many inquiries and 
so many comments on the comments that I made the last time I was here 
for a special order. I was talking then about how you educate children. 
I talked about history and how important history is in the education of 
children. Education is a major part of our families first agenda, and I 
want to talk now about the families first agenda.
  Education, history, math, science, all of it is important. We had a 
situation where during this 104th Congress an absurd proposal has been 
made by the majority to abolish the Department of Education. Not only 
do they come with billions of dollars in cuts for education programs, 
but they have proposed to totally abolish the Department of Education.
  This same majority, the Republican majority, has chosen to wage a 
relentless war on the working families and workers in their workplace. 
The kind of antilabor legislation that has been proposed and, in some 
cases, passed on the floor of this House are indicative of what the 
other side, the Republican majority, thinks about working families. So 
the working families first, families first agenda of the Democrats, is 
an answer, an appropriate answer to the positions that were not stated 
in the Contract With America, but certainly have been taken de facto by 
the Republican majority.
  We are defending American workers. Families first agenda is a defense 
of American workers.
  I go back to the Atlanta Constitution editorial, which could easily 
be a good introduction to our Families First agenda. The Atlanta 
Constitution editorial on June 21 is about the shrinking middle class, 
and I will read parts of it. It is reporting on the fact that an 
analysis by statisticians at the U.S. Census Bureau has confirmed and 
expanded on reports of a growing economic inequality in the United 
States.
  Expressed in stark English, the report says that the rich are getting 
richer and the rest of America is getting poorer. Now, you have heard 
that

[[Page H7146]]

before, but this comes from the Atlanta Constitution, which is not a 
New York liberal paper but pretty much respected in circles that 
criticize us New York liberals.
  Continuing to read from editorial: Expressed in numbers the news is 
no better. Between 1974 and 1994 the share of national income going to 
the richest 5 percent of American households rose by 33 percent. 
Meanwhile the share of national income going to the bottom 60 percent 
fell by 14.3 percent. That trend can be traced back more than 20 years 
and has seemed to accelerate rather than slow over the past 5 years.
  The implications of that ongoing transformation are tremendous and 
ought to inform public policy on the gamut of social issues from 
welfare reform to crime, but it does not. For example, we know that 
education matters over the past 20 years, incomes of those with 
advanced college degrees have risen while incomes of those with less 
than a college degree have fallen sharply. Yet the trend in Congress 
has been to cut financial aid that would make college possible for many 
poor and middle-class students.
  I am continuing to read from the Atlanta Constitution editorial of 
June 21: We also know that the minimum wage, which sets the floor for 
workers at the bottom of the economic scale, has failed to keep pace 
with inflation. The falling real minimum wage in turn contributes to 
the declining income share of the working poor. Yet Congress continues 
to balk at raising the minimum wage.
  Now, we know now that the Senate is still considering the minimum 
wage; the other body. We did pass the minimum-wage increase in this 
House after much hand-wringing and threats. Finally, common sense 
prevailed. The focus groups told the Republican majority they had to do 
it. The public opinion polls told the Republican majority that they 
ought to listen to the public for a change. So we got a bill passed 
here in this House, but it still faces a difficult time in the Senate.
  Returning to the article, the editorial in the Atlanta Constitution: 
The Census Bureau data also raised a series of fundamental questions 
that we ought to be asking ourselves. At what level does economic 
inequity threaten the social stability of our Nation?

                              {time}  1700

  ``And does the rising crime rate and growing alienation among our 
young people suggest that we may have already reached that point?''
  Let me re-read this. This is a paragraph from the Atlanta 
Constitution editorial entitled ``Shrinking Middle Class.''
  ``The Census Bureau data also raises a series of fundamental 
questions.'' The first question is, ``At what level does economic 
inequity threaten the social stability of our Nation, and does the 
rising crime rate and growing alienation among our young people suggest 
that we may have already reached that point?''
  No. 2, ``If falling incomes make it more difficult for young men to 
raise families, at what point do they begin to abandon the joys and 
responsibilities of fatherhood? Have we perhaps reached that point 
already, as evidenced by the rising rate of illegitimate births?''
  Point three, ``Does the growing economic strain on the bottom 60 
percent of Americans account in some way for the growing anger among 
many white men, who have been told that their problems are the fault of 
the Government, of minorities, or of foreign trade?''
  The next point, ``At what point does the inequality between rich and 
poor begin to undermine the democratic character of the United States, 
a nation that long prided itself on the relative equality of its people 
as compared with nations in Europe and elsewhere? Today, income 
inequality in the United States exceeds that of any other 
industrialized nation.''
  ``Today, income inequality in the United States exceeds that of any 
other industrialized nation. Are we still the country we believe 
ourselves to be? Unfortunately, to even raise such questions is to risk 
being accused of fomenting class warfare in this country.''
  I continue to quote from the Atlanta Constitution editorial. 
``Unfortunately, to even raise such questions is to risk being accused 
of fomenting class warfare in this country. It is a laughable charge. A 
quiet class war is already underway, and it is being fought largely 
because of technology. The computer revolution is altering the 
relationship between human beings and machines. It is making human 
labor less valuable and machines more valuable. Corporate downsizings 
and stagnant wages, accompanied by soaring corporate profits and a 
recordbreaking stock market, are the first visible symptoms of that 
largely invisible process. It concentrates wealth in the hands of those 
with money to invest in computer technology, and to a lesser degree, 
among those with the education to serve or build computers. Meanwhile, 
it impoverishes those attempting to make their living by their own hard 
work.
  Trying to halt that technological revolution would be futile. We do 
not have the power. We do have the power, however, to mold and guide 
technology to ensure that American values and ideals are honored. We 
also have the power to adjust social policy to economic reality. But we 
have failed to do so.''
  I end the article, the editorial which appeared in the Atlanta 
Constitution on June 21, 1996. I include the entire editorial into the 
Record.
  The material referred to is as follows:

                         Shrinking Middle Class

       An analysis by statisticians at the U.S. Census Bureau has 
     confirmed and expanded on reports of a growing economic 
     inequality in the United States. Expressed in stark English, 
     the report says that the rich are getting richer and the rest 
     of America is getting poorer.
       Expressed in numbers, the news is no better. Between 1974 
     and 1994, the share of national income going to the richest 5 
     percent of American households rose by 33 percent. Meanwhile, 
     the share of national income going to the bottom 60 percent 
     fell by 14.3 percent.
       That trend can be traced back more than 20 years, and has 
     seemed to accelerate, rather than slow, over the past five 
     years. The implications of that ongoing transformation are 
     tremendous and ought to inform public policy on the gamut of 
     social issues, from welfare reform to crime.
       But it doesn't. For example, we know that education 
     matters. Over the past 20 years, incomes of those with 
     advanced college degrees have risen, while incomes of those 
     with less than a college degree have fallen sharply. Yet the 
     trend in Congress has been to cut financial aid that would 
     make college possible for many poor and middle-class 
     students.
       We also know that the minimum wage--which sets the floor 
     for workers at the bottom of the economic scale--has failed 
     to keep pace with inflation. The falling real minimum wage in 
     turn contribute to the declining income share of the working 
     poor. Yet Congress continues to balk at raising the minimum 
     wage.
       The Census Bureau data also raise a series of fundamental 
     questions that we ought to be asking ourselves:
       At what level does economic inequity threaten the social 
     stability of our nation, and does the rising crime rate and 
     growing alienation among our young people suggest that we may 
     have already reached that point?
       If falling incomes makes it more difficult for young men to 
     raise families, at what point do they begin to abandon the 
     joys and responsibilities of fatherhood? Have we perhaps 
     reached that point already, as evidenced by the rising rate 
     of illegitimate births?
       Does the growing economic strain on the bottom 60 percent 
     of Americans account in some way for the growing anger among 
     many white men, who have been told that their problems are 
     the fault of government, minorities and foreign trade?
       At what point does the inequality between rich and poor 
     begin to undermine the democratic character of the United 
     States, a nation that long prided itself on the relative 
     equality of its people as compared with nations in Europe and 
     elsewhere? Today, income inequality in the United States 
     exceeds that of any other industrialized nation.
       Are we still the country we believe ourselves to be?
       Unfortunately, to even raise such questions is to risk 
     being accused of fomenting class warfare in this country. It 
     is a laughable charge. A quiet class war is already under 
     way, and it is being fought largely because of technology. 
     The computer revolution is altering the relationship between 
     human beings and machines. It is making human labor less 
     valuable and machines more valuable.
       Corporate downsizings and stagnant wages, accompanied by 
     soaring corporate profits and a record-breaking stock market, 
     are the most visible symptoms of that largely invisible 
     process. It concentrates wealth in the hands of those with 
     the money to invest in computer technology, and to a lesser 
     degree among those with the education to serve or build 
     computers. Meanwhile, it impoverishes those attempting to 
     make their living by their own hard work.

[[Page H7147]]

       Trying to halt that technological revolution would be 
     futile. We do have the power, however, to mold and guide 
     technology to ensure that American values and ideals are 
     honored. We also have the power to adjust social policy to 
     economic reality. But we have failed to do so.

  As I said, this could be an introduction to the Democratic families 
first agenda. At the heart of the families first agenda is the 
recognition that we are in a transition period in the American economy: 
that high technology, the age of the computer, the miniaturization, 
telecommunications innovations, new innovations every day, internets, 
the age of information, all of these things are going forward and 
nobody can stop them. Nobody should try to stop them. What we as 
Members of Congress and as public policymakers must do is try to 
understand the hardship that is being created by the majority of the 
people out here in our own Nation. The majority of the people cannot 
cope with these changes unless they have some kind of Government 
policies which recognize the difficulties. The families first agenda 
recognizes these difficulties.
  The families first agenda puts a great deal of emphasis on education. 
The President's proposals for tuition, for tax deductions for tuition 
for the first 2 years, $10,000 of tax deductions, puts a great emphasis 
where it should be, on education. The President's proposals for a 
$1,500 tax credit puts the emphasis where it should be, on education. 
The proposal for merit scholarships puts the emphasis where it should 
be, and that is on education.
  Familes first includes these proposals. It is moving definitely in 
the right direction. Again, I applaud and commend the House Democratic 
leader, the gentleman from Missouri, Mr. Gephardt, for putting together 
this families first package. I think we cannot say too much about it 
between now and November to get the American people fully to understand 
that this is a defining statement, very simply set forth. There are 
many details that we will add in our individual districts. Certainly in 
my district, I have a job to do back in the 11th Congressional District 
in Brooklyn, to make certain people understand what the families first 
agenda is all about.
  They are going to have a chance to have a debate, I understand, 
because according to the Washington Times of yesterday, Monday, July 8, 
I have a Republican opponent. She is so invisible that I did not know 
she existed before I read about her in the Washington Times. I have a 
Republican opponent, and she is going to join in the debate because she 
is definitely going to bring the ideas of the Republican majority to 
the 11th Congressional District.
  My district has never had an opportunity to see a real Republican who 
walked from door to door, as this article says that my opponent was in 
the housing project at Brownsville, a poor section of my district, a 
low-income housing project. She was there, going from door to door, 
telling people that vouchers are a good idea, school vouchers are a 
good idea. I think they should hear that.
  She is one of 24 black Republicans running for Congress this year, so 
I think these 24 black Republicans, who may be a part of a Clarence 
Thomas movement all across America, are people who are going to take 
the position that economic policies and policies related to 
discrimination and voting rights, all those policies that are being 
promulgated by the right and are hurting African-Americans directly, 
that those policies should be promulgated by African-American 
candidates in African-American communities, in some cases. Certainly my 
opponent is running in a community which is 74 percent black. It will 
be a good test to see how many people appreciate these ideas.
  My opponent wants to talk about vouchers for private schools. I think 
people in my district ought to hear it. The low-income people in the 
projects ought to hear it proposed that the answer to the education 
problems in our society are vouchers for private schools. She should 
tell them that if the government provided vouchers, it would be about 
the amount equivalent to what we provide for title I programs. The only 
voucher program that has ever been proposed at the Federal Government 
level takes the title I money and divides it in areas where schools are 
eligible for title I. That comes out to between $1,000 and $1,500 per 
child.
  So my opponent, the Republican who is going to venture into the low-
income housing projects, wants to tell them that ``We will give you a 
voucher of $1,000 or $1,500 so you can send your child to the private 
school, but you have to get the rest.''
  That will be interesting to see how rapidly they throw my opponent 
out of the building, because $1,500 is not going to pay for anybody's 
private school tuition over a year. Where is the rest of the money 
going to come from, $3,000, $4,000? My opponent and other Republicans 
who are going to run in districts like mine should understand that 
poverty means you do not have any money left over even to have music 
lessons, even to give your child music lessons. You do not have any 
money left over if you are living on minimum wage and minimum wage is 
providing you with an income of $8,400 a year. If a person is on 
minimum wage and they go to work every day, they make $8,400 a year.
  Most jobs are laying off, and for various reasons people do not go to 
work every day: They get sick, they have various problems. So a person 
on minimum wage does not even make $8,400 a year. They do not have any 
money to make up the difference between the voucher and the private 
school tuition. That is just one example. I think Republicans running 
in districts like mine will understand a great deal a year from now, 
between now and November.
  But let the issue be joined. Let them come forward and learn about 
poverty. I think in the process of running for election, if more 
Republicans learn about poverty, it will mean that in the next 
Congress, which will probably be controlled, or which undoubtedly will 
be controlled by the Democratic majority, will have an atmosphere of 
more informed participants, and we can return to civility and get on 
with trying to do what is good for the Nation, including what is good 
for poor people.
  The families first agenda starts us down that road. I am going to 
read the introductory letter of the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. 
Gephardt], or portions of his letter, because it is a very good letter:

       As Democrats, we have worked to fight the more extreme 
     parts of the Republican agenda during the past year and a 
     half, and we should make no apologies for that role. It was 
     important to defend the interests of average, working 
     families. But we also have an obligation to tell those 
     families what we would do if we are elected this fall--and 
     why their choice of Representative or Senator will have 
     national and not just local consequences.

  I am reading from Mr. Gephardt's introductory letter about the 
families first program.

       The truth is, we're in a much more competitive global 
     economy. For too many middle-class families, just staying in 
     place means a never-ending scramble of longer hours, second 
     jobs, and credit card debt. Family incomes have been falling 
     for nearly 20 years. Economic pressures are stretching the 
     limits of family and community life. Our country is changing 
     in profound and permanent ways--and too many Americans aren't 
     prepared for that change.
       Republicans all but ignored these bread-and-butter, day-to-
     day concerns. That is why the Families First agenda is 
     comprised entirely of the kinds of changes that affect 
     people's day-to-day lives--in their homes, in their 
     neighborhoods, in their children's schools.
       Just as importantly, we do not want to replace the 
     extremism of one party with the extremism of another. Every 
     part of this agenda is modest, moderate, and achievable. It 
     is not about big government handouts. It is merely an attempt 
     to have more families earn more security for themselves in 
     this tough new economy. Our hope is that, in the end, many 
     moderate Republicans will join us in support of the Families 
     First agenda.
       The message is simple: If Democrats are given a chance to 
     lead the Congress this fall, our sole and central mission 
     would be to help those families who are working hard to pay 
     the bills, raise their children, and save for a decent 
     retirement. That is the only way to have a Congress that 
     truly puts families first and special interests last. I urge 
     you to join in the effort to share this Families First agenda 
     with the American people, and look forward to working with 
     you on winning a Democratic majority to make a real 
     difference in the lives of working families across America.

  Mr. Speaker, I include in its entirety the letter of June 24, 1996, 
of the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Gephardt] to his fellow Democrats.
  The material referred to is as follows:

                                               Families First,

                                                    June 24, 1996.
       Dear Fellow Democrat: On Sunday, Tom Daschle and I joined 
     with Democrats at four

[[Page H7148]]

     satellite sites across the country to announce the Families 
     First Agenda--an action plan developed by House and Senate 
     Democrats working together on the steps that a new Democratic 
     majority would take to improve the lives of hard-working, 
     middle class families.
       As Democrats, we have worked to fight the more extreme 
     parts of the Republican agenda during the past year and a 
     half, and we should make no apologies for that role. It was 
     important to defend the interests of average, working 
     families. But we also have an obligation to tell those 
     families what we would do if we are elected this fall--and 
     why their choice of Representative or Senator will have 
     national, not just local, consequences.
       The truth is, we're in a much more competitive global 
     economy. For too many middle class families, just staying in 
     place means a never-ending scramble of longer hours, second 
     jobs, and credit card debt. Family incomes have been falling 
     for nearly twenty years. Economic pressures are stretching 
     the limits of family and community life. Our country is 
     changing in profound and permanent ways--and too many 
     Americans aren't prepared for that change.
       Republicans all but ignored these bread-and-butter, day-to-
     day concerns. That is why the Families First Agenda is 
     comprised entirely of the kinds of changes that affect 
     people's day-to-day lives--in their homes, in their 
     neighborhoods, in their children's schools.
       Just as importantly, we do not want to replace the 
     extremism of one party with the extremism of another. Every 
     part of this agenda is modest, moderate, and achievable. It 
     is not about big government hand-outs. It is merely an 
     attempt to help families earn more security for themselves in 
     this tough new economy. Our hope is that, in the end, many 
     moderate Republicans will join us in supporting the Families 
     First Agenda.
       The message is simple: if Democrats are given a chance to 
     lead the Congress this fall, our sole and central mission 
     would be to help those families who are working hard to pay 
     the bills, raise their children, and save for a decent 
     retirement. That is the only way to have a Congress that 
     truly puts families first, and special interests last. I urge 
     you to join in the effort to share this Families First Agenda 
     with the American people, and look forward to working with 
     you on winning a Democratic majority to make a real 
     difference in the lives of working families across America.
           Yours very truly,
                                              Richard A. Gephardt,
                                          House Democratic Leader.

  Mr. Speaker, the families first agenda has many parts. I will just 
summarize those parts. In the families first agenda, Democrats offer 
realistic, moderate, and achievable ways to help every struggling 
family. They an be described in terms of three main principles: 
security, opportunity, and responsibility.
  Security. Under security we have paycheck security, helping families 
get the paycheck they deserve; health care security, expanding access 
to quality health care for children; retirement security, making 
pensions more available and portable; personal security, making our 
neighborhoods, communities, and schools safer places to live, work, and 
learn.
  Opportunity is the second big category. Educational opportunity, 
making college and vocational schools tax deductible, and other ways to 
make it easier for parents to make sure their kids get better paying 
jobs. Economic opportunity means helping small businesses to prosper. 
The third category is responsibility: Government responsibility, 
balancing the Federal budget while protecting fundamental commitments 
like Medicare; individual responsibility, real welfare reform and a 
crackdown on parents who will not support their children, and efforts 
to prevent teen pregnancies; corporate responsibility, hands off 
employee pensions, end tax breaks that encourage companies to move 
American jobs overseas, and basic protection for our environment.
  I am just going to talk today in the few minutes I have remaining 
about paycheck security and educational opportunity and economic 
opportunity. The families first agenda places a great deal of emphasis 
on what is most important first, and that is paycheck security. 
Paycheck security starts with a decent minimum wage. You have to have 
some rewards that are relevant. For people who go to work every day, to 
make $4.25 an hour, $8,400 a year, is not rewarding work. It does not 
encourage people to work. It does not say that we care about families. 
So paycheck security must first of all involve raising the minimum 
wage.

                              {time}  1715

  Paycheck security also provides paying women what they deserve. By 
better enforcing the laws already on the books requiring equal pay for 
women and by offering voluntary fair pay guidelines for businesses, we 
can help make sure that women get the pay they deserve.
  Paycheck security involves making quality child care more affordable. 
Families should not have to cut corners on child care. But with quality 
care priced at thousands of dollars a year, many families have no 
choice. That is why Democrats are proposing a bigger tax break to help 
parents afford quality child care. I think even the people from one end 
of my district to the other, people in low-income housing projects, 
people who are lucky enough to live in single-family homes in the 
wealthier part of my district, they all will quickly understand that 
child care and paying for child care imposes a particular burden on 
parents and that there should be more relief for parents who have 
children who need child care.
  Finally, banning imports made with child labor. In order for our 
workers at the lowest levels to have jobs available, they should not 
have to compete with imports that are made with child labor in other 
parts of the globe.
  So paycheck security, starting with minimum wage, is very important. 
Paycheck security also means that in the workplace, there ought to be a 
friendly atmosphere. In the workplace there ought to be safe 
conditions. I serve on the Committee on Economic and Educational 
Opportunities so I am very close to some things that have occurred this 
year which are most unsettling.
  The fact is that the Contract With America that was proposed by the 
Republican majority before they got elected had nothing to do with 
attacking working conditions for workers in America. There were no 
platforms in there, there were no items which talked about waging war 
on workers. But what has happened over the past 18 months is that war 
has been declared on working people in the workplace. Indirectly that 
means that war has been declared on working families.
  As I said before, you declare war when you refuse to pass the minimum 
wage, and even now the Senate balks at passing the minimum wage. You 
declare war on workers when you come up with the omnibus appropriations 
bill that the Republicans came up with where they threatened to make 
drastic cuts in the labor programs. There was a 30-percent cut in the 
House bill originally for the National Labor Relations Board. The 
National Labor Relations Board is the cornerstone for the kind of 
relationship that we have established in this country between labor and 
management. Unions do not mean very much if you do not have decent 
decisions being passed down by the National Labor Relations Board and 
if you are going to cut the budget by 30 percent, it means that you are 
on the way to trying to completely wipe out that National Labor 
Relations Board and its effectiveness. That cut did not go through. We 
fought it. So we brought it to a standstill. The act cuts the funding 
still but it does not cut it by that much.

  We were also successful in addressing the attempt to defund large 
parts of OSHA, the Occupational Safety and Health Agency. We forced 
them to allow certain things to continue, such as the continued work on 
developing standards for ergonomics. But new regulations were still 
prohibited by this Congress. Every worker, regardless of whether he 
belongs to a union or not, benefits from the work of OSHA. Yet this 
Republican majority attacked the work of OSHA.
  I think the most important thing that is underway right now is the 
present attack by the Republican majority on the overtime of workers. 
Your overtime pay now is jeopardized. They are coming for your overtime 
pay. The Republicans want the overtime pay of working Americans. They 
have something called the Working Families Flexibility Act and we 
fought hard to stop it but we were not able to prevent the passage of 
this compensatory time bill in the Committee on Economic and 
Educational Opportunities. I serve on the Committee. It was painful to 
watch the hand go out reaching for the overtime of American workers.
  Again, you do not understand poor people if you want to say to them 
that

[[Page H7149]]

``you work overtime and we're not going to give you cash, we're going 
to give you an opportunity to take time off and aren't you happy about 
that?''
  Yes, we need to change our Fair Labor Standards Act to some degree to 
allow for some categories of people to have that kind of flexibility, 
but this kind of assault on the overtime provisions of the Fair Labor 
Standards Act, which did not include any protections, employers could 
go bankrupt and walk away with your compensatory time and you could not 
get it, employers could coerce people and say, ``I'm not paying you in 
cash. You don't have a choice. I'm going to give you time off 
instead.''
  The overtime pay that workers earn in American is very important to 
the quality of life of families, and when the Republicans say, ``We are 
coming for your overtime,'' it is just one more assault on working 
families, one more reason for this families first agenda.
  The Davis-Bacon confrontation continues. They are trying to take away 
the Davis-Bacon protections, which only seek to guarantee that from one 
area of the country to another you do not undercut and erode the 
standard of living and the wages of workers by bringing in big Federal 
projects and having them go to low-bidding, roaming, renegade 
contractors who move about the country with low-paid workers under 
terrible conditions, who provide no health insurance, who provide no 
pension plans, who do not have decent working conditions, and you let 
them undercut the construction workers in the local areas.
  So the families first agenda is a defense of workers agenda. We are 
defending them from the onslaught of the Republican majority here in 
the Congress.
  The educational opportunities part of the Agenda is also a defense of 
an attack on educational opportunities. This Republican majority 
started the year by proposing that we abolish the Department of 
Education. No other industrialized nation in the world has proposed to 
run away from and abandon its responsibilities to provide some kind of 
centralized coordination of education.
  Every other nation understands how important education is in its 
prosperity, in maintaining its standard of living and its place and 
position in the global economy as well as its position of leadership. 
Some nations understand very well that if you invest very heavily in 
education, you can take certain segments of the global economy.
  I do not think it is by accident that Bangalore, India, is one of the 
places which is highlighted for computer programming technology. 
Companies from all over the world reach into Bangalore, India, to get 
computer programmers. For 1 month's wages that United States companies 
pay here to computer programmers, they can get a whole year's worth of 
work from an Indian computer programmer in Bangalore. It is not by 
accident that in Bangalore somebody has provided the education for 
large numbers of people, somebody has chosen to specialize and to make 
that a human resource that all the world wants to reach into.
  We should understand that the future of the country is not bound up 
in our F-22 fighter planes, the future of the country will not be 
guaranteed by a new Star Wars system, the future of the country has 
nothing to do with more Seawolf submarines. We have added $13 billion 
to the defense budget, and that will buy us no more education. It will 
buy us weapons systems that will be obsolete in terms of the kinds of 
challenges that we are going to face. The global economy is not about 
who has the best weapons. We are way ahead of everybody else. We are 
likely to stay ahead of everybody else. What we need is education.
  In the housing projects of Brownsville, the people are very concerned 
about education. My opponent who is going from door to door ought to 
tell them about the $10,000 tax deduction that is being proposed by the 
Democrats. The Democratic President is proposing a $10,000 tax 
deduction for college and job training. Under this provision, families 
will be able to deduct up to $10,000 from their taxes for tuition at a 
college, graduate school or certified training or technical program. I 
want to emphasize that, a certified training or technical program will 
also be included for a 2-year period.
  The deduction will also be available to recent graduates paying off 
interest on student loans. There are many families in poor communities 
who have one member who has gone to college who is struggling to pay 
back that loan or one member who is in college who is being hit with 
tuition increases. In the City College of New York City, in the State 
College of New York State, increases in tuition have resulted in 
thousands of students dropping out of school because they are poor. 
When you are poor, there is no margin. They were struggling to meet the 
previous tuition. If you raise it by $500 or $700, then you wipe out 
the opportunity, because they do not have any savings, they do not have 
any margin. They are living at a point where providing daily 
necessities is all their income will provide.
  My Republican opponent will learn this if she will just stay there 
and listen long enough. We also have 2 years of college for kids with 
good grades, some merit scholarships.
  Finally, economic opportunity is on the agenda. Nobody wants to back 
away from providing small businesses with new opportunities and greater 
help for small businesses. I think small entrepreneurs ought to be 
included under the National Labor Relations Act. Some way should be 
developed to help small entrepreneurs in the process of dealing with 
larger corporations and dealing with working conditions that, because 
they are small and because they are not united, invite exploitation.

  People who learn how to operate computers, people who are able to 
program computers, people who are able to enter the high tech world of 
telecommunications also need some protection. They need some help. I 
would go beyond the Democratic agenda and make certain that they get 
the kind of help that is needed in meeting the kind of intense and 
hostile competition that comes from large corporations trying to 
bargain them into bargain situations.
  We have a situation right now where the sweat shops are being 
highlighted because sweat shops are forced by a bidding process to go 
for the cheapest possible work setup. They are exploiting workers, and 
that has become a scandal that has been temporarily exposed. We hope 
that some good will come out of the present exposure, but that kind of 
situation is a continuing problem for small businesses.
  Mr. Speaker, I want to conclude by saying that we will come back to 
explore the Families First Agenda. The Families First Agenda is a 
packaging which really concretizes what the Democratic minority has 
been trying to do all year long.
  We have fought the hostile attacks on the American workers and the 
work force. We have fought for better working conditions for workers. 
We have fought for families to have a chance to survive. We have fought 
for the minimum wage. We continue to fight for aid to students in 
college. We fought for aid for Head Start students. We fought the 
Republicans on the cuts in title I.
  Our Families First package is only a statement that we will continue 
to be the champions of American working families. We will defend 
workers, we will defend families, and in the process we will defend the 
conditions which will help to make this Nation a great Nation. The 
transition we are in, the transition which leads to a great income gap 
between the rich and poor, the suffering that is taking place quietly 
out there is people try to make ends meet, all of it is relevant to the 
coming election, all of it is relevant to the things that we as Members 
of Congress and other elected officials are responsible for. We want to 
make America great and the only way to make America great is to follow 
the leadership of the Democrats and put families first.

                          ____________________