May 11, 1995 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE H 4871

cost taxpayers an additional $345 billion. Over and above the deficits that

we run each year, we are adding another $345 billion dollars to the national debt for this tax cut package.

Why did we do it? A lot of people

wonder. Of course it is good news for a

politician to go home and say, guess

what, I got a tax break for you. But

people at home I think are a little

wiser and understand at a time of deficits a tax break, particularly for the

wealthy people and corporations, is

certainly not the right medicine for

the patients.

So now let us fast-forward to 1 a.m.

this morning when the House Budget

Committee decides to put out their

House Budget Resolution and lay out

the spending goals for Congress for the

next year.

Well they had a problem. They not

only had to deal with the deficit, they

had to figure out how to pay for that

tax break, and so they had to make

deeper cuts in spending in order to

take care of the Republican tax break,

and to come out with the so-called balanced budget when it is all said and

done.

So, where did they turn to make the

cuts in Federal spending to pay for the

tax break for wealthy individuals and

profitable corporations? They turned

to Medicare. In fact, they cut over a 7-

year period of time $283 billion from

Medicare. Medicare of course is the

health insurance plan for America’s

senior citizens.

What does that mean when you make

a $283 billion cut in Medicare? It means

that during that 7-year period of time,

every senior citizen in America will be

asked to pay an average of $3,500 more

in premiums in Medicare. So you have

the seniors, many of them in very low

income situations if any income, paying more, so that they can in fact compensate for the Republican tax break.

That to me raises some serious questions of fairness. And make no mistake, we are talking about cuts in Medicare. Many Republicans will stand up

and say it is not really a cut, you

Democrats have it wrong all over

again. We are increasing spending.

Well, let me try to tell you what they

mean by that. Assume for a minute

that you get a notice from your bank

or savings and loan that your mortgage

payment just went up $100 a month.

That is a source of real concern for

most families. But then your boss tells

you, incidently I am giving you a raise

of $50 a month.

Well you thank your boss. You think

to yourself, I am still $50 short. What

the Republicans are doing is providing

the $50 a month in Medicare increases

when the cost of Medicare is going up

$100, and the same thing is going to be

happening in the out years. The cost of

Medicare goes up, but the Republicans

do not provide enough money for it because they have to take care of this tax

break that they passed.

And then take a look at what they

did on Social Security. We stood on

this floor, passed a resolution and said

no, not never, never will we cut Social

Security, not even to achieve a balanced budget. Just count on it. And everybody ceremoniously voted, went

home and put out a press release and

told the seniors they never, never have

to worry, we are never going to touch

Social Security.

Guess what, 1 a.m. this morning in

comes the House Republican budget

resolution and it cuts Social Security.

It reduces the COLA, the cost-of-living adjustment for Social Security. So

here you have the senior citizens getting hit in both directions. First they

do not get the cost-of-living adjustment they anticipated for Social Security, and then have to pay for more

Medicare.

For what? To pay for the Republican

tax break. That to me is upside down.

If we are going to balance the budgets,

let us do it in a fair way and not nail

Medicare and Social Security.

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a

A MOTHER’S DAY TRIBUTE

fprevious order of the House, the gentlewoman from Texas [Ms. JACKSON-LEE]

is recognized for 5 minutes.

Ms. JACKSON-LEE. Mr. Speaker,

this Sunday, May 14, 1995, we will have

another very joyous occasion to celebrate and commemorate a very special

day for Americans, and so I thought it

appropriate during the course of deliberation and sometimes making very

difficult decisions on behalf of all of

our citizens to simply take a moment

to part the waters and stop for a moment and pause and simply say happy

Mother’s Day, happy Mother’s Day to

the mothers, to grandmothers, to

mothers-in-law, to stepmothers, to foster mothers, those mothers who take

in children, mothers who have adopted,

and act as mothers, those women with

no relation by blood or law but have

really mothered someone somehow,

somewhere, and certainly to those

mothers in your neighborhoods and

cities and towns and our counties and

our States and our churches and synagogues and parishes and mothers who

are always there to help someone. I

simply want to say to you and to all

Americans let us make May 14, 1995 a

very special time, a very close time, a

very rewarding time for that woman

who has been so very special to you.

Let us make sure we say to each and

every one of those mothers and I certainly want to say to all of those in the

18th Congressional District of Texas

happy Mother’s Day to you. You deserve it and we could not have done it

without you.

COME SHOP WITH ME FOR

MOTHER’S DAY

fThe 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, this Sunday America celebrates Mother’s Day.

And families all over our country will

gather on this day to honor the women

who strive every day both inside and

outside the home to keep the families

of America strong; a celebration they

richly deserve.

b 2100

We all know that American women

are working more and more inside the

home and outside the home, and what

we may not know is that many of them

are working for less money.

For women in many industries, textiles, apparel footwear, for instance,

their pay has actually dropped nearly 5

percent over the last 10 years in spite

of the fact that they are working harder and working longer. In fact, onethird of America’s working women

earn poverty-level wages.

Ironically, many of the gifts which

we traditionally give our mothers on

Mothers’ Day as expressions of our

gratitude turn out to be the products of

industries which depend on the depression of wages, primarily women’s

wages, both at home and abroad, products such as new shoes or new handbags or new outfits and, yes, even

roses.

Last Tuesday, I had the privilege of

participating in a press conference at

which we pointed out the discrepancies

in wages between products made in our

country and the same products made

overseas, in fact, products made by

U.S. companies that have outsourced

production abroad. We, to demonstrate

our point, dressed a mannequin in

many of these foreign goods, and on

the mannequin we had a Coach handbag, where American women used to

earn $7.42 an hour, not high wages by

any standards, but today those bags

are being made by Korean workers

being paid $1.64 an hour, and those

Coach bags cost nearly $200. So who is

making the profit off those women?

Or Naturalizer shoes; women in our

country used to make $6.95 an hour in

manufacturing Naturalizer shoes, but

their wages and jobs are gone, and

those shoes are now made in Brazil,

where women there earn 47 cents an

hour, but, of course, Naturalizer shoes

cost well over $50. So who is making

the profit off those women?

Or take this sweater, a Chaus sweater

that used to be manufactured in the

United States, where women earned

$7.88 an hour. Now this very same

sweater made by that same company in

China, where women work for pennies,

but, of course, the sweater is not

cheap. In fact, the price tag on this one

is over $40. Who is making the profit

off those women?

Or take this skirt, manufactured by

the At Last Company. This skirt used

to be made in the United States of

America. Women workers earned $7.49

an hour. Now this skirt is being made

in India, and chances are if a child in

India helped make that skirt, which is

very likely, no wages were paid.
H 4872 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE May 11, 1995

So it being Mothers Day, we provided

our mannequin with a dozen roses.

Roses are grown in this country, and

they are harvested, and the average

wage of farm workers is $5 an hour.

But, of course, the roses that are available in this community today are provided through Colombia, where workers earn 55 cents an hour. But if you

try to buy your mom a dozen roses in

Washington this week, it is going to

cost you $75. So ask yourself, who is

making the money off of these women?

But are we getting a real bargain for

all of this value for our money? A

break for the consumer? Well, I ask

you, is a bargain a Coach handbag at

$200 or Naturalizer shoes at $50 or a

Chaus sweater at $40 or roses at 75?

The Come Shop With Me campaign

asks: Is it worth it? Are we really getting a good deal? Can the 7,300 people

who have lost their jobs making handbags here in America afford a $200

Coach handbag made in Korea? Can the

17,700 women who have lost their jobs

in our country in the footwear industry

buy Naturalizer shoes made in Brazil

that cost $50? And can the women of

Brazil or the women of Korea or the

women of India, can they buy those

products on the wages they earn? Absolutely not.

Over the last decade in our country,

nearly 300,000 women workers have lost

jobs in the textile industry alone,

mostly to foreign competition.

Mr. Speaker, let me end by saying

the Come Shop With Me campaign will

continue over the next few months to

draw our attention to the human cost

of trade.

Tonight I say to the mothers of

America and the world, ‘‘Happy Moththe Speaker’s announced policy of Janer’s Day. We will not forget you.’’

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under

fuary 4, 1995, the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. BURTON] is recognized for 60

minutes as the designee of the majority leader.

[Mr. BURTON of Indiana addressed

the House. His remarks will appear

hereafter in the Extensions of Remarks.]

the Speaker’s announced policy of JanThe SPEAKER pro tempore. Under

fuary 4, 1995, the gentleman from New

Jersey [Mr. PALLONE] is recognized for

60 minutes as the designee of the minority leader.

[Mr. PALLONE addressed the House.

His remarks will appear hereafter in

the Extensions of Remarks.]

By unanimous consent, leave of abLEAVE OF ABSENCE

fsence was granted to:

Mrs. MEEK of Florida (at the request

of Mr. GEPHARDT), for today after 4:15

p.m., on account of illness.

Mr. PASTOR (at the request of Mr.

GEPHARDT), for today after 5 p.m. and

the balance of the week, on account of

personal business.

Mr. TANNER (at the request of Mr.

GEPHARDT), for today after 5 p.m. and

the balance of the week, on account of

official business.

Mr. BONO (at the request of Mr.

ARMEY), for today and May 12, on account of medical leave.

Ms. DUNN of Washington (at the request of Mr. ARMEY), for today after

3:30 p.m. and the balance of the week,

so that she may attend the graduation

of her son Reagan from Arizona State

University.

By unanimous consent, permission to

SPECIAL ORDERS GRANTED

faddress the House, following the legislative programs and any special orders

heretofore entered, was granted to:

(The following Members (at the request of Mr. WATT of North Carolina)

to revise and extend their remarks and

include extraneous material:)

Mr. OWENS, for 5 minutes, today.

Mr. DEFAZIO, for 5 minutes, today.

Mr. LIPINSKI, for 5 minutes, today.

Mrs. CLAYTON, for 5 minutes, today.

Mr. BECERRA, for 5 minutes, today.

Mr. DURBIN, for 5 minutes, today.

(The following Members (at the request of Mr. HAYWORTH) to revise and

extend their remarks and include extraneous material:)

Mr. BROWNBACK, for 5 minutes, today.

Mr. METCALF, for 5 minutes, today.

Mr. SMITH of Michigan, for 5 minutes,

on May 16 and 17.

Mr. FOX of Pennsylvania, for 5 minutes, today.

(The following Member (at her own

request) to revise and extend her remarks and include extraneous material:)

Ms. JACKSON-LEE, for 5 minutes,

today.

By unanimous consent, permission to

EXTENSION OF REMARKS

frevise and extend remarks was granted

to:

(The following Members (at the request of Mr. WATT of North Carolina)

and to include extraneous matter:)

Mr. COLEMAN.

Mr. DURBIN.

Mr. RUSH.

Mr. FOGLIETTA.

Mr. GORDON.

Mr. BAESLER.

Mr. TOWNS.

Mrs. THURMAN.

Mr. MONTGOMERY.

Mr. REED.

Ms. KAPTUR.

Mr. MANTON.

Mr. JACOBS.

(The following Members (at the request of Mr. HAYWORTH) and to include

extraneous matter:)

Mr. DUNCAN.

Mr. MARTINI in two instances.

Mr. WALSH.

Mr. PACKARD.

Mr. BILIRAKIS.

Mrs. ROUKEMA.

Mr. DORNAN.

Mr. YOUNG of Florida.

Mr. FORBES.

Mr. HUNTER.

Mr. GOODLING.

Mr. GUNDERSON.

Mr. MCKEON.

Mr. HORN in two instances.

(The following Members (at the request of Ms. KAPTUR) and to include extraneous matter:)

Mr. UPTON.

Mrs. FOWLER.

Mr. GOODLATTE.

Mr. TRAFICANT.

Mr. RAHALL.

Mr. MFUME.

Mr. KIM.

Ms. MCCARTHY.

Mr. S

Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Speaker, I move

TOKES

ADJOURNMENT

.

fthat the House do now adjourn.

The motion was agreed to; accordingly (at 9 o’clock and 5 minutes p.m.),

the House adjourned until tomorrow,

Friday, May 12, 1995, at 10 a.m.

PUBLIC BILLS AND RESOLUTIONS

REPORTS OF COMMITTEES ON

fUnder clause 2 of rule XIII, reports of

committees were delivered to the Clerk

for printing and reference to the proper

calendar, as follows:

Ms. PRYCE: Committee on Rules. House

Resolution 144. Resolution providing for the

consideration of the bill (H.R. 535) to direct

the Secretary of the Interior to convey the

Corning National Fish Hatchery to the State

of Arkansas (Rept. 104–116). Referred to the

House Calendar.

Mr. MCINNIS: Committee on Rules. House

Resolution 145. Resolution providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 584) to direct the

Secretary of the Interior to convey a fish

hatchery to the State of Iowa (Rept. 104–117).

Referred to the House Calendar.

Mrs. WALDHOLTZ: Committee on Rules.

House Resolution 146. Resolution providing

for consideration of the bill (H.R. 614) to direct the Secretary of the Interior to convey

to the State of Minnesota the New London

National Fish Hatchery production facility

(Rept. 104–118). Referred to the House Calendar.

PUBLIC BILLS AND RESOLUTIONS

Under clause 5 of rule X and clause 4

fof rule XXII, public bills and resolutions were introduced and severally referred as follows;

By Mr. THOMAS (for himself, Mr.

STARK, Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut,

Mr. CARDIN, Mr. MCCRERY, Mr.

MCDERMOTT, Mr. ENSIGN, Mr. KLECZKA, Mr. CHRISTENSEN, Mr. LEWIS of

Georgia, Mr. CRANE, Mr. HOUGHTON,

and Mr. SAM JOHNSON):

H.R. 1610. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to require employer-provided group health plans to credit coverage

under a prior group health plan against any

preexisting condition limitation; to the

Committee on Ways and Means.