May 3, 1995 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE H 4529

Ms. PELOSI. I appreciate the gentleman’s comments about what it means

to hospitals, both rural and urban, and

why we need to address the budget seriously without taking out all these hundreds of billions of dollars for tax cuts

for the wealthiest.

I wanted to point out that distinction again, though, between tax cuts

for the wealthiest and who is paying

the price, out-of-pocket cost to senior

citizens.

Right now the Urban Institute says

that seniors spend a staggering 21 percent of their incomes to pay for out-ofpocket health care costs. That is now.

If the Republicans go through with

their tax cuts and take it out of Medicare, as we said earlier in the special

order of the gentleman from California,

this will again take it out of the pockets of seniors, a back door way of reducing their Social Security benefits

by having them pay in some cases 100

percent of the cost-of-living adjustment and in many cases a majority of

the cost-of-living adjustment.

So we absolutely must recognize who

is paying for whose benefit. The senior

citizens, the most vulnerable in our

country, their health care benefits,

out-of-pocket costs, will be used to pay

for tax breaks for the wealthiest Americans. That just cannot be right.

Let’s all be of good faith in this.

Eliminate the tax break from this

equation. Let’s get down to talking

about making Medicare solvent and

doing it in a way that is respectful of

the limitations of income of our senior

citizens.

Mr. DURBIN. I thank the gentlewoman for her comments. I want to

add something.

We are in a period of sacrifice. We

will have to cut back on Federal spending. We are asking people to accept

that reality. But think about some of

the people affected by this debate.

Some of the people literally dependent

on Medicare and Medicaid are in nursing homes, totally unable to take care

of themselves. They have exhausted all

of their savings. They are dependent on

Government programs and what their

families can come up with. As we increase their expenses, there is nowhere

for them to turn to make up the difference.

INTRODUCTION OF THE PROFESSIONAL TRADE SERVICE CORPS

fACT

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a

previous order of the House, the gentlewoman from Ohio [Ms. KAPTUR] is recognized for 5 minutes.

Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Speaker, I agree

with my colleagues who were on the

floor here of the absolute necessity of

the United States balancing its budget

and putting our financial house in

order. But this afternoon, I want to

talk to you about a different deficit,

the trade deficit, and a piece of legislation I am introducing today, the Professional Trade Service Corps Act,

which is essential to America correcting that deficit as well.

U.S. trade policy for the last two decades under both Democratic and Republican Presidents has been a major

net loser for our Nation, its businesses

and our workers. While some individual

corporations and certain shareholders

have benefited, overall the productive

wealth of America has been diminished, as ballooning trade deficits have

fueled the movement of our dollars offshore, as our citizens bought more and

more imported goods coming into this

country rather than our exports being

sold abroad.

Trade deficits represent a serious

decapitalization of this country, with

more and more of our people’s money

moving abroad to pay for the goods

they are buying from foreign importers, while foreign capital pours into

this country. The economic accounts

tell the story.

In 1980, our country was a net lender

to the world, as foreign interests owed

us more than $400 billion.

b 1230

Today, however, the United States

owes foreign creditors nearly $800 billion. We are now a net debtor nation.

As foreign imports, including many

from U.S.-based firms that have escaped offshore, surge into our country,

jobs that should have been created

here, good-paying jobs, are now being

located elsewhere in the world.

Furthermore, the value of our dollar

continues its decade-long decline as

U.S. dollars flood into the international market to pay for the goods

that we are buying from other places.

Last year our country racked up yet

another record deficit with the world

in merchandise trade of over $166 billion. For January of this year, the

United States set a monthly record deficit of $12 billion more in just 1 month,

and keep in mind $1 billion of debt in

trade translates into 23,000 lost jobs in

this country.

These deficits represent real lost

jobs, stagnant wages, and decreased

living standards as your dollar buys

less in this country.

You might be watching the trade

talks that are going on with Japan

right now. Last year we had over $66

billion in trade deficit with Japan,

more of their goods coming in here

than our goods being able to get into

that market, because in fact it is a

closed market, and if you just look at

the automotive segment of that deficit,

which represents half of our deficit

with Japan, if we could solve that problem we could build in this country 100

factories, each employing over 5,000

workers, 100 factories, each employing

over 5,000 workers, if we only solved

half the trade problem that we have

with Japan.

In short, these deficits hurt every

American in our communities, and

that is why today I am introducing the

Professional Trade Service Corps bill

to upgrade U.S. trade negotiating functions through creation of a specialized

tenured body of trained professional

trade negotiators for this country. The

Corps’ mission would be to conduct

U.S. trade negotiations and streamline

the trade functions of this Government.

The Professional Trade Service Corps

incorporates a three-tier strategy to

address the need for more skilled and

committed U.S. trade negotiators.

First the proposal would accomplish

that goal by creating an elite professional body of American negotiators to

address the issues of short tenure and

the revolving door among our trade negotiators.

The average trade negotiators for our

country stay in their position 2 years.

The average negotiator for Japan stays

in his position 30 years, speaks several

languages, and has worked in various

countries around the world.

Our bill would also establish a Trade

Services Institute to train our current

and future U.S. trade negotiators in

the practices, culture, and customs of

our trade competitors.

Then finally the bill restricts Trade

Service Corps officials as well as other

senior members of the executive and

legislative branches from representing

or advising foreign interests immediately after leaving Government service.

U.S. trade negotiators serve on the

front lines of today’s battle to win

market share in the increasingly competitive international marketplace. To

win, our country must have highly

trained, professional, tenured, and

committed trade negotiators with integrity at the table negotiating the

best terms for America’s workers and

America’s businesses.

I ask my colleagues to please join me

in cosponsoring the Professional Trade

Service Corps Act. Put this country on

an equal footing at the international

bargaining tables that control our destiny in terms of jobs and development

in this country.

FAIR TRADE WITH JAPAN

f(Mr. MCINTOSH asked and was given

permission to address the House for 1

minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. MCINTOSH. Mr. Speaker, today,

officials from the U.S. Trade Representative’s Office are meeting with

Japanese officials to address the current trade imbalance in auto parts between our two countries. I hope their

efforts are successful.

Now, I am an advocate for free trade.

For countries to prosper in today’s

global market place, they must export

and import freely. The deal is simple.

It’s a two-way street.

Unfortunately, when it comes to

Japan, our open market-policies have

not been reciprocated. Hard-working

American autoworkers and manufacturers of automotive parts in Indiana

and throughout America have faced unfair barriers to their products. Last
H 4530 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE May 3, 1995

year, Japan imported 1 U.S. car for

every 25 it exported; 60 percent of our

$66 billion deficit with Japan results

from imbalances in cars and autoparts.

American autoparts manufacturers

are not asking for special privileges,

just a fair opportunity to compete in

Japan. We have waited too long. The

Japanese must honor the practices of

free trade and agree to fairly import

U.S. auto parts.

When I meet with automakers and

autoworkers in the Second Congressional District of Indiana they tell me,

‘‘We make the best auto products in

the world, just give us a fair chance to

compete.’’ An agreement that allows

real access to the Japanese market for

autos and auto parts is a matter of

fairness for U.S. automotive firms and

workers.

The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr.

WHY AMERICANS ARE ANGRY

fREGULA). Under the Speaker’s announced policy of January 4, 1995, the

gentleman from Vermont [Mr. SANDERS] is recognized for 60 minutes as the

designee of the minority leader.

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Speaker, it is no

great secret that throughout the United States of America today there is a

great deal of anger, there is a great

deal of unrest. Fortunately not every

angry person goes about blowing up

buildings and killing hundreds of innocent people, but all over this country,

people are feeling an unease. Something bad is happening and they do not

quite understand what it is about.

What I would like to do this hour,

Mr. Speaker, with the help of some of

my colleagues, is to perhaps try to explain to the working people of America, to the middle-income people of

America, perhaps some of the reasons

why people are angry, why people are

frustrated, and then maybe make some

suggestions as to how we can develop

public policy which will improve life

for all of our people.

Mr. Speaker, let me begin by quoting

from an I think very important article

that appeared on the front page of the

New York Times on Monday, April 16,

just a couple of weeks ago. And what it

says is that the United States of America today has by far the most unequal

distribution of wealth in the entire industrialized world. And the article says

that:

Recent studies show that rather than being

an egalitarian society, the United States has

become the most economically stratified of

industrialized nations. Even class societies

like Britain, which inherited large differences in income and wealth over centuries, going back to their feudal past, now

have greater economic equality than in the

United States.

Then the article goes on to say:

Federal Reserve figures from 1989, the most

recent available, show that the wealthiest 1

percent of American households, with net

worth of at least $2.3 million each, own nearly 40 percent of the Nation’s wealth.

That in contrast to Britain where the

richest 1 percent only own 18 percent of

the wealth. So in other words, we are

now living in a country from which the

richest 1 percent own 40 percent of the

wealth, which is more wealth than the

bottom 90 percent. Rich are getting

richer, poor are getting poorer, the

middle class is shrinking, and I think

that explains or begins to explain why

it is that American people and especially working people, the middle-income people are feeling very, very anxious. Because the bottom line is, and

we do not talk about that too much

here, Democrats do not talk about it,

Republicans do not talk about it, Rush

Limbaugh somehow forgets to talk

about it, but the reality is that since

1973, four-fifths, 80 percent of the

American workers have experienced

falling or stagnant real incomes.

Now what does that mean? That

means in the last 22 years the American people are working very, very

hard, in many instances they are working longer hours, in fact a study came

out recently, if you can believe this,

that in order to compensate for the

falling wages American workers are

now receiving, workers are now working an extra 1 month a year. In my own

State of Vermont it is certainly not

uncommon for workers to be working

not one job, not two jobs, but on occasion three jobs.

Since 1973, for production workers,

there has been a 20-percent decline in

real wages. There has been an increase

in poverty. For low-wage workers,

workers who just have a high school

degree, who do not have any college,

the drop in entry-level jobs has been

precipitous. For young male workers

there has been a 30-percent decline in

entry-level wages for young men graduating high school going into the work

force; for young women the drop has

been 18 percent.

There was an interesting article

which I think typifies much of what is

happening in this country, that appeared in the Wall Street Journal some

months ago and they said the good

news is that in the Midwest, many of

the factories that has been closed in

the 1980’s are now reopening, workers

are now going back to work in the factories. That is the good news. The bad

news is that those workers, same workers are going back to the same factories at wages which are paying them

50 percent to 60 percent to 70 percent of

what they made 10 or 12 years before.

Mr. DEFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, will the

gentleman yield?

Mr. SANDERS. I am delighted to

yield to my good friend from Oregon,

one of the outstanding Congressmen in

this institution.

Mr. DEFAZIO. I thank the gentleman. I think what you brought up in

your introductory remarks here brings

you to three major issues, and I would

like to frame the debate that way as

we continue the discussion.

You pointed out the decline of incomes and the standard of living for

middle-income families and the disproportionate accrual of wealth to the

top 1 percent, generally those earning

over $250,000 a year. And what I think

people would be interested in is what is

the majority, the Republican majority’s response to that growing disparity of income. Do they have a plan to

deal with it. And of course the plan is

their tax bill. And the tables on the tax

bill are pretty interesting.

If we look at the tax bill which

passed the House of Representatives by

a fairly narrow margin, but with virtual unanimity on the Republican side

of the aisle, 71.4 percent of the benefits

of the capital gains tax break are going

to go to people who earn over $200,000 a

year. And if you go to the corporate tables, you find similar distributions.

That is the largest corporations in

America, and the multinational corporations will do well. Small businesses will get scant or no tax relief,

and even smaller incorporated firms. In

fact, we are repealing the corporate alternative minimum tax, something

that was put in place in 1986 with

agreement between President Reagan

and a Democratic Congress that it was

embarrassing that the largest, most

profitable corporations in America,

AT&T, $24.898 billion in profits 1982 to

1985, paid negative $635 million in

taxes. So we had to put in place a corporate alternative minimum tax. But

now we are being told the solution to

the growing disparity and the unemployment in America is to go back to

those tax policies of the 1980’s.

Mr. SANDERS. If the gentleman will

yield, what we are trying to explore is

in fact why Americans are angry, and

what I get upset about is people are

angry, they should be angry, but to a

large degree they do not know what

they are angry about.

b 1245

What the gentleman from Oregon has

just said is that in the early 1980’s

some of the largest corporations in

America, and in America most of the

stock is owned by the wealthiest people, what he said is that in the early

1980’s, major corporations earning billions in profit paid zero in Federal

taxes, less than the working stiff who

makes $20,000 a year, and because the

Congress, which had passed that legislation, was a little bit embarrassed

going back to their districts, they

passed a minimum corporate tax law

which said to these corporations that,

‘‘After all your lawyers and all of your

fancy accountants get through going

through the tax loopholes, you still are

going to have to pay at least something in taxes.’’

And what the gentleman has just described is that several weeks ago right

here on the floor of the House the Republican leadership voted to repeal

that minimum corporate tax, so we are

going to go back to those good old days

when major corporations paid zero in

taxes.

Mr. DEFAZIO. I would like to introduce another element. What I think angered people, when I went around to