Dick Gephardt

Mr. GEPHARDT

Mr. GEPHARDT. Mr. Speaker, I must say that I believe that there has been a change in the Republican Party. In 1989, we had 382 votes in this House to increase the minimum wage, and we had President Bush sign the bill. I have great admiration for the Members like the gentleman from Connecticut [Mr. Shays] and others who have stood within their party and argued the case for a minimum wage, and I hope that many of them will vote against the Goodling amendment that exempts so many of these people from the minimum wage, because then I think we have a chance to pass a bill that will increase the minimum wage. But this used to be a bipartisan issue. There was an understanding in our society that if you worked and you did what the society asks everyone to do, to work for a living, that you would be rewarded with a decent living wage. The Goodling amendment that exempts all these small businesses, in effect, repeals the minimum wage for millions of Americans. Why on God's green Earth would we want to do that? The argument is that it loses jobs. How does increasing the minimum wage or having a minimum wage lose jobs? This argument has been made every time we have discussed this issue, and we have ever so often increased the minimum wage to keep up with inflation. It has not lost jobs. Just think about it for a minute. Do you think anyone who gets the minimum wage does not immediately spend it on paying their bills? The money goes right back into the economy and we build the economy from the bottom up, not just from the top down. That person working in the short-order restaurant is going to pay their bills and buy meals in that restaurant, and pay their electric bill and pay their housing bill, and that money courses through the economy and creates economic activity and builds more jobs. But putting that aside for a moment, do we ever want to get to a point in this country where we say one type of work should be paid 50 cents an hour and something else is more valuable? Look at the people that would be hurt under the Goodling amendment: Workers in manufacturing shops, insurance agency employees, employees of medical practices, security guards, garment workers, building maintenance workers. Are we to say that somebody that carries around a bedpan in a hospital, cleaning up after people in the hospital, is not worth anything, that they have no meaning in their life; that only if you are a computer operator or an investment broker that you have meaning in this society? We have to honor work. We have to honor people's contribution to this society. We had a woman here last week who held up the picture of her son, talked about her bills. She went through her bills. She said, ``At the end of the month, I have no money for food.'' She said, ``I have to put a bill aside every month to pay for food for my children.'' She said, ``He got hurt in football practice, we wound up with an $1,000 bill.'' She said, ``I can't pay it, can't even think about paying it. So when the lawyers called, I told them you can't get something I don't have.'' Then she said a friend came to her and said, ``Go on welfare so you can get Medicaid.'' She said, ``I won't go on welfare. I want to work.'' That is what this is about. The majority leader has said he would fight this increase with every fiber in his being. Let me tell you, we will fight for this increase with every fiber in our being.

Mr. GEPHARDT

Mr. GEPHARDT. Mr. Chairman, this Republican budget reminds me of a movie I saw a few years ago called ``Groundhog Day.'' In the movie, Bill Murray, who is the star, keeps reliving the same day over and over again. Everything happens to him the same way. This budget, which has been advertised as a real change, when you examine it, when you open the package that has been repackaged, is really the same thing. It is said to be a moderate budget. It is not a moderate budget. It is warmed over tax cuts for the wealthy, rehashed cuts in Medicare, in Medicaid, reconstituted cuts in education and the environment. For 17 months, the President, the Democrats have been waiting for the Republicans to come to the sensible center so that we could get a budget done. The Republicans have been offered a balanced budget plan made up entirely of cuts that the Republicans support, but it is never good enough. We cannot seem to get the compromise, the consensus that we need to get this done. This budget still raises taxes. Now listen to this. I said it in the last budget debate: This budget raises taxes on working people who are at the bottom, trying to get in the middle class, while it cuts dramatically taxes on capital gains, most of which goes to the wealthiest Americans. How can anyone argue that this is fair, that this is sensible, that this is pragmatic, that this is what we ought to be doing in this country? It still cuts Medicare and Medicaid way too much. That would not have to be done if we simply gave up the tax break for the wealthiest Americans, if we just focus the tax break on middle-income people and people trying to get in the middle class. We would not need as deep a cut in Medicare and Medicaid and in education. And then if we look at the list that comes out of discretionary spending, it is too long for me to read this afternoon. Job training in vocational education, cut by more than $1 billion; national direct student loans, eliminated entirely; libraries across the country cut by one-fifth; 24 education programs eliminated entirely; Institutes for Occupational Safety and Health, gone; rural housing eliminated; rural health, gone; agricultural extension and research, gone. The list goes on. I could read it all afternoon. These are efforts that everybody could agree are good for the future of this country that only, only the government will perform if this country is to move forward. Now let me end with this: This budget for the second year in a row is not going to happen. The President will veto the implementation of this budget, and what I cannot understand, my friends in the Republican Party, we now have 2 years of no progress. I know my colleagues did not like the President's budget in 1993, but it cut the deficit in half, and most importantly, it got done. This country is not a parliamentary system. Our colleagues cannot do it their way alone. They have to come to the middle, and we have to find a compromise to move this country forward. if our colleagues continue being obstinate and resolute in wanting to do it their way or no way, we get nothing done for the American people. Let us vote this budget down, let us get a budget back on this floor that is somewhere out here in the middle that everybody in this body can support, and let us get this deficit down and balance this budget as we should have done a long time ago. This budget will not live. Let us find a budget that will.

Mr. GEPHARDT

Mr. GEPHARDT. Mr. Chairman, I rise to just hope that Members on both sides of the aisle will turn down this amendment. I realize that disarming the Soviet Union is the most important foreign policy objective we have. I think this amendment will make it harder to actually accomplish that reality that we all hope for, and I would simply remind Members, whatever their view on specific parts of this amendment, please remember there is an election in Russia next month. Can my colleagues imagine how it is in our interests to say to the Russian people that we want to stop and move back from an effort we have made together to get rid of nuclear arms as they are going to the polling booths to vote for whether they want to return to communism and to totalitarianism or whether they want to continue with democracy? This is a bad amendment, it is a bad idea, it is bad timing, and I urge Members to vote against this amendment.

Mr. GEPHARDT

Mr. GEPHARDT. Mr. Chairman, I urge a large bipartisan vote for this amendment. We have had burdensharing amendments in the past and I am afraid they have not gotten the result that all of us want. The progress that we have made in this area has been not enough in my view. This is a new amendment that we have worked on in a bipartisan way. It broadens the traditional approach that we have taken to burdensharing. We are asking our allies not merely to pay more but to do more, to play an active role in their own defense and in their region's affairs. This bill is intended to increase burdensharing in four critical areas: financial support, defense spending, participation in multinational military operations, and foreign aid. We believe it gives the President the leverage he needs to achieve that goal, and it gives the Congress the information it needs to take action unilaterally if our allies do not rise to the challenge. I believe this amendment is a much better approach than the one that we have used in the past. We will not simply reduce over presence overseas if our allies do not do more, because in some cases that hurts us more than it hurts them. Instead, we will provide the incentives to make it in our allies' clear interests to play a greater role, as they should. If that fails, we can take serious unilateral action. And, believe me, we should do that if we do not get the result that we have been asking for. The new world order demands a new world partnership. And at a time of smaller governments here at home, it makes sense to share our burdens all around the world. I urge every Member, Democrat and Republican, to vote for this amendment to make clear that America can lead the world without always paying all of the bill, and to ensure that just as all nations share the blessings of peace and security, we should all bear the burdens as well. I urge every Member to vote for this amendment to send a signal to our administration that we want them to take this most seriously and, more importantly, that our allies should take it seriously as well. I commend the gentleman from Connecticut and others on the Republican side with my friend from Massachusetts, who has led on this effort for taking this effort on and improving this amendment in such important ways.

Mr. GEPHARDT

Mr. GEPHARDT. Madam Speaker, I rise to urge my colleagues to support this rule and to support this bill to make it easier and more affordable to adopt a child in this country. We talk a lot about the issue of families in this Chamber, and what we can do to strengthen them, support them, and help them. This is a bill with broad bipartisan support that will actually make it easier to create families. Too many precious young children grow up in foster care, shuttling from foster home to foster home without even one real parent to raise them to teach them basic values and decency, indeed to love them. Right now, there are more than 5,000 children in foster care in my State of Missouri, over 1,100 in St. Louis city and County alone. But the simple fact is that there are parents longing to adopt them and care for them who simply cannot afford or think they cannot afford to do it. Imagine this, that there are couples who are desperate to open their homes to children without families, yet they simply cannot meet the price tag. An adoption can cost as much as $20,000 in this country. I do not know of many families who can afford that kind of money. If we as a society really believe in family values, if we really want to put families first and fight for the children who will inherit this country, we have got to do all we can to encourage adoption to make it cheaper and to make it easier. This bill will not solve all the problems, but it is an important start. A $5,000 tax credit could make the crucial difference for many middle-class families, families trying to get in the middle-class who want to adopt a child. By voting for this bill, we put our money where our mouths are. We create thousands of loving families where today there are shattered dreams. If you ask me, these are the kind of votes that we ought to have in this Chamber. So, I urge my colleagues to support this rule, support this bill, and give children a chance at the kind of family life they need and so richly deserve.

Mr. GEPHARDT

Mr. GEPHARDT. Mr. Speaker, I rise to honor my friend and fellow St. Louisan James Nelson, who retired last week as Special Agent in Charge of the FBI for Missouri after a career that has spanned a quarter century. It is fitting to recognize Jim for his work on behalf of his country. Born and raised in St. Louis, Jim graduated from Southwest High School and then went on to the University of Missouri. In 1964 and 1965, he played professional baseball with the Minnesota Twins. Jim later enlisted in the U.S. Army, where he served our country as an artillery officer in Korea. Jim began his work with the FBI in 1969 as a Special Agent, and from 1976 to 1981, he worked at FBI Headquarters as the Chief of the La Cosa Nostra investigations. Jim was then selected to attend the senior command course at the British Police College in Bramshill, England. In 1982, Jim was assigned as Assistant Special Agent in Charge of the FBI's Los Angeles office, where he oversaw their narcotics, organized crime, and general criminal operations, as well as managing security for the 1984 Olympics. In 1987, he returned to Washington, DC as chief of the General Crimes Section, which is responsible for a wide array of sensitive FBI investigations throughout the country. Jim has lectured extensively, and has been an expert witness in numerous trials. Jim was assigned as Special Agent in Charge of the FBI for the State of New Mexico from November 1988 until he assumed his duties in Missouri in June of 1991. He retired last week after 27 years of service to our country to begin a new career in the private sector. Personally, I have known Jim for more than 30 years. I have the utmost respect and admiration for him and his achievements in fighting crime. I am honored to recognize him here today, and wish him a happy retirement and the best of luck for his new career.

Mr. GEPHARDT

Mr. GEPHARDT. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague. On behalf of all of our colleagues, Democrat and Republican as well, I rise to recognize and welcome our new colleague, the gentleman from Maryland, Elijah Cummings. As the gentleman from Maryland, Steny Hoyer, has said, this new Member has very big shoes to fill, and those shoes are represented by the two former Representatives in this district who are here today, and we are honored by their presence. As Steny has said, this young man was born and raised in the same city he now serves, the city of Baltimore. He knows the neighborhoods, the schools, the stores and the churches, because he lived among them all of his life. He has never lost his passion for building a better Baltimore, for giving something back to the city and community that has given so much to him. As Steny said, he took his Phi Beta Kappa degree from Howard University and his law degree from the University of Maryland, and went right back to Baltimore, building a highly distinguished career as a lawyer, and then serving four terms in the Maryland General Assembly. In the Maryland House he was a leader on criminal justice issues, on constitutional law, and on economic issues. After one term he was elected chairman of the Maryland Legislative Black Caucus, the youngest person ever to hold that post. Last year he was elected Speaker Pro Tem to the House of Delegates, the second ranking position in the House. His colleagues thought he did such an outstanding job they voted him one of Maryland's most effective legislators in a poll. Beyond all these titles and accomplishments, Mr. Speaker, I believe Elijah will make a difference in this Congress for less tangible reasons than Steny cited: His abiding sense of decency and humanity, his ability to see the subtleties in our public problems, and his determination to pass on to the next generation the opportunities that he earned in his own life. On behalf of all of us, Republican and Democrat alike, I am delighted to welcome the gentleman from Maryland to the 104th Congress. I think he is going to be a powerful force for progress in his State and in our country, and I know that we will count on his leadership, as Maryland has counted on his leadership, for many years to come. Welcome to the House of Representatives.

Mr. GEPHARDT

Mr. GEPHARDT. Mr. Speaker, my Democratic colleagues and I have come to this Congress for one single fundamental purpose: to fight for the working and middle-class families that are at the very heart of this country. Throughout this very long and difficult budget process, we have held every policy and every proposal to a simple test: Does it make it easier for the lives of families that are working hard, trying to educate their children, trying to save for a decent retirement; or does it make that struggle even harder? That is why Democrats fought so hard for a budget that does not cut education, student loans, or summer jobs, or roll back clean air or water standards or abandon the 100,000 police that we so desperately need on our streets. This is not a perfect budget. This has been a difficult compromise on both sides. But I believe we have proven that we can cut the budget without cutting education or the environment, that we can rein in runaway spending without ravaging hard-working American families. Mr. Speaker, while this is a day for both parties to come together, America must not forget that, without the Democratic Party, we would not have kept our commitment to educate America's children, to keep our environment safe and to insure basic health and safety standards in the workplace. Without the Democratic Party, we would not have kept our faith with working families in the middle class. See, that is what the Democratic Party stands for. That is who we are. And that is why even after 2 Government shutdowns and 13 temporary spending bills, we would never ever give up the fight for education and health care and the environment and safe workplaces. I will never forget visiting an elementary school in Houston with the gentleman from Texas, Gene Green, and the gentlewoman from Texas, Sheila Jackson-Lee, seeing the young children playing with computers and learning to read in intensive after-hour classes sponsored by chapter 1, and seeing the hope and the joy of these youngsters in being able to learn. This budget is for those children and their families. Or being in New Orleans and seening the chapter 1 mothers and their children meeting, and hearing a young mother stand up and saying because of chapter 1 she was getting her high school degree and planned to go to college and said she wanted to get her masters degree because her children were enrolled in chapter 1 in an inner-city school in New Orleans. So I commend my Republican colleagues for letting us save those commitments and making this budget work for working families. Today we celebrate a victory, not of party or partisanship, but of America's most basic and important values. Vote for this budget, and let it be a model of the kind of bipartisanship and working together that I will hope will mark the rest of this Congress.

Mr. GEPHARDT

Mr. GEPHARDT. Mr. Speaker, today, on the first anniversary of the tragedy that shook Oklahoma City and the entire Nation, I join with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle in offering condolences to the friends and families of those who lost their lives--gratitude to those Federal workers and citizens whose bravery saved lives--and resolve to do all we can to prevent such acts of hateful terrorism and violence from happening again. No words or deeds of this Congress can ever bring back the dedicated public servants, citizens, and innocent children who lost their lives in the Oklahoma City bombing. Even 1 year after this awful tragedy, it is hard to find meaning in their loss--to make sense of the random hatred they suffered. And as we move toward enacting crucial antiterrorism legislation in the Congress, the image of those who lost their lives 1 year ago--especially the precious young children--reminds us of how fragile human life can be, and how each day is truly a blessing for ourselves and for our families. My hope is that by remembering what happened on April 19, 1995, we will not only redouble our efforts to secure the safety and security of our citizens--beyond all boundaries of party or partisanship--but that we will also come to appreciate the gifts of service and citizenship we receive from our fellow Americans each and every day. Such gifts, like the good works of those who died in Oklahoma City and those who risked their lives to save others, are all too easy to take for granted.

Mr. GEPHARDT

Mr. GEPHARDT. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent for the immediate consideration in the House of the resolution (H. Res. 406) in tribute to Secretary of Commerce Ronald H. Brown and other Americans who lost their lives on April 3, 1996, while in service to their country on a mission to Bosnia.

Mr. GEPHARDT. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. In a moment, I will yield to the distinguished Speaker of the House. Mr. Speaker, I rise this morning with great sadness to offer a resolution in tribute to Commerce Secretary Ron Brown and all of the Americans who lost their lives in that awful tragedy on April 3 while they were all serving their country on a mission to Bosnia. I am pleased that we are able to make this a bipartisan resolution, in fact, a resolution of all the Members of the House. For when a highly and distinguished member of the U.S. Cabinet is killed overseas for the first time in American history, when we lose an individual, and individuals of such extraordinary ability and achievement, when we lose so many other dedicated business leaders and public servants, members of the Commerce Department, members of the U.S. Air Force, it is not a partisan tragedy, it is truly a tragedy for all of our citizens and all of our country. In the week since Ron Brown's death, it has already become a cliche to speak of his brilliant political and public service career. Of his pioneering role as chairman of the Democratic Party and his efforts to almost single-handedly redefine the Commerce Department and its mandate. For those of us who considered Ron a friend, as I did, it is reassuring to know that the country remembers him as fondly as we do. But when there are so many tangible achievements to celebrate in a man's life, it becomes harder to recognize what is less tangible but perhaps as more important. To me, there is a simple reason why Ron Brown broke down so many barriers in so many areas and shattered so many preconceptions, about politics, race, and America's place in the world. For all of his practical and political talents, Ron Brown was an idealist, pure and simple. His goals for himself, his party and his country were always based on what should be and not on what others thought could be. This is a rare quality in any of us, in a politician, a rate quality in a human being. But it is why so many people loved and respected Ron Brown and were so often willing to abandon their own goals and egos to work with him for a higher purpose. Mr. Speaker, much has been said in recent days about Ron Brown's ability to heal divisions, to reconcile views, to focus on what unite people rather than on what divide them. He truly believed that you could always accomplish more by working together, by bringing others along with you. That is one reason why he nurtured so much talent in so many other people throughout his career. As party chairman, he really did bring the Democratic Party together, something that is hard to do, sometimes almost one person at a time. To see the depth of his empathy and understanding, to see how far he would go to understand people who disagreed with him and opinions and then to find the common ground between them was to see the very essence of leadership. Commerce Secretary Ron Brown dramatically expanded his mandate, reinvigorating the foreign commercial service and becoming a real booster of U.S. exports on a scale that we have never seen before. He poured all of his passion and energy in his work at Commerce, as he had at the Democratic Committee, and I always admired the aggressive way in which he led that department, even in the face of criticism. Mr. Speaker, our country could use more Ron Browns, for he pushed boundaries, broke down barriers almost instinctively, intuitively as if he simply refused to acknowledge that they were there in the first place. Perhaps in that sense, we can find a shred of meaning in Ron Brown's death, because no risk, no naysayers could ever have kept him from exploring new terrain, for reaching new challenges, and from trying to redefine the world in which we live. That he managed to do all of these things in so few years is a powerful legacy indeed. I also want to reach out on behalf of all of us to the families not only of Ron Brown but all of the Americans who died in this terrible tragedy. All of them together, in their own way, were trying to do something very important for the United States and for the world. The business people who were out there were out there to help rebuild an economy torn by war and strife. Mr. Speaker, the truth is there was no real profit to be made by these companies. They were there on a mission of the United States to help the people of Bosnia. Unlike maybe many of the other trade missions that Ron Brown asked them to be on, this one was truly a mission of help. This was a mission of altruism in the highest sense of the business community and the people of this country. So to the families of all of these people, whether it was business leaders, whether it is Ron Brown, whether it was the Air Force people who were trying to take them there, whether it was the staff people at Commerce, I want to reach out and deliver in as heartfelt a way as we can the deep sympathy and the feeling of gratitude and appreciation that all of us have for all of these people and their families. There is no way that any of us can bring these lives back, but we can at least stand here today and on behalf of the American people give a heartfelt condolence of sympathy and heartfelt thanks and appreciation for the sacrifice of all of the people who died in this terrible tragedy. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the distinguished Speaker of the House, the gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Gingrich].

Mr. GEPHARDT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the Speaker for that fine statement and urge all the Members to vote for this resolution. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Dingell] be allowed to manage the remainder of the time.

Mr. GEPHARDT

Mr. GEPHARDT. Mr. Speaker, thanking Mr. Dean, Members of the House, I rise this morning on behalf of all of my Democratic colleagues and all of my colleagues to welcome the newest Member of the House of Representatives, Juanita Millender-McDonald of California. Many of our colleagues have begun their careers in local and State, city, town government and built their understanding of their districts and their communities from the bottom up, from the grass roots. But in the gentlewoman from California [Ms. Millender-McDonald], we have gained a colleague who has already used her talents as a State lawmaker to become a national leader. A former school teacher, Ms. Millender-McDonald has been an innovator on education policy, pushing for creative reforms in California's inner-city schools, such as better English instruction, tougher standards and model school-to-work programs. That may be why she was appointed to the National Commission on Teaching in America's Future and the Education Committee of the States, where she serves as a powerful voice for California. She has also worked to start workshops all across the country to encourage broad education reform. But education is just one of the issues on which she has made her mark. From her seat in one of California's most diverse assembly districts, she fought for transportation improvements that are creating hundreds of new jobs, for child care, for grandparents raising their grandchildren, for the growth of high-tech business in California, for basic rights for the homeless, and for reform of California's workmen's compensation laws. When she became chair of California assembly's insurance committee, she was the first woman and the first minority to do so. When she became chair of the revenue and taxation committee, she was also the first woman to do that. She has blazed a trail of innovation and accomplishment on every issue that she has faced. My colleagues, not only have we gained a tireless and effective new champion for the 37th District of California, a woman with almost unlimited interests and abilities, we have also gained a sage and experienced legislator, and in keeping with her first career I believe she can teach us a great deal. Join me now, my colleagues, in welcoming our newest colleague, the gentlewoman from California [Ms. Millender-McDonald].

Mr. GEPHARDT

Mr. GEPHARDT. Mr. Speaker, in the few days since Ron Brown's death, it has already become a cliche to speak of his brilliant political career--of his pioneering role as party leader, and his efforts to almost single-handedly redefine the Commerce Department and its influence on the American economy. For those of us who considered Ron a friend, it is reassuring to know that the country remembers him as fondly we do. But when there are so many tangible achievements to celebrate in a man's life, it becomes harder to recognize what is less tangible, but perhaps more important. To me, there is a reason that Ron Brown broke down so many barriers in so many aspects of his life, and shattered so many preconceptions about politics, race, and America's place in the world. For all his practical and political talents, Ron Brown was an idealist, pure and simple. His goals for himself, his party, and his country were always based on what should be, and not on what others thought could be. That is a rare quality in a politician, and a rare quality in a human being. But it is why people loved and respected Ron Brown, and were so often willing to abandon their own goals and egos to work with him for that higher purpose. I first began to work closely with Ron when he became chairman of the Democratic National Committee in 1989, around the same time that I became House majority leader. It may be hard to remember just how bad prospects seemed for the Democratic Party at that point, and how few people believed that our party could ever again capture the hearts and minds of the American people. Ron Brown was not only an unfailing optimist--often the only voice of optimism at those early meetings and strategy sessions--but a man who believed so strongly in the bedrock principles of the Democratic Party, he refused to accept any reason why America would not rally around Democratic ideals and candidates. There is no question in my mind that Ron Brown was the driving force behind Democratic victories in both the 1990 midterm elections and the 1992 Presidential election--and that he worked and sweated for those victories not out of some desire for narrow political gain, but because of his unshakable faith in the Democratic Party as the party of progress for average, working Americans. He never forgot where he had come from, and who he wanted to help. Much has been said in recent days about Ron Brown's ability to heal divisions, to reconcile warring factions, to focus on what united people as Democrats, or business leaders, or Americans. He truly believed that you could always accomplish more by working together--by bringing others along with you. That may be why he established a unique precedent in working so closely with congressional leaders as party chairman. He really did bring the Democratic Party together--sometimes almost one person at a time. To see the depth of his empathy and understanding--to see how far he would go to understand divergent people and opinions, and then to find the common ground between them-- was to see the very essence of leadership. As Commerce Secretary, Ron Brown dramatically expanded his mandate, reinvigorating the Foreign Commercial Service, and becoming a booster of U.S. exports on a scale that had never before been seen. He poured his energy and passion into his work at Commerce, much the way he had done so at the DNC. I admired the aggressive manner in which he led that department, even in the face of partisan political pressures to play a lower profile. Our country could use another Ron Brown. For he pushed boundaries and broke down barriers almost instinctively, intuitively, as if he simply refused to acknowledge they were there in the first place. Perhaps, in that sense, we can find some shred of meaning in Ron's terrible death-- because no risks and no naysayers could ever have kept him from exploring new terrain, reaching for new challenges, and trying to redefine the world in which we live. That he managed to do all those things in so few years is a powerful legacy indeed.

Mr. GEPHARDT

Mr. GEPHARDT. Mr. Speaker, Members of the House, I urge my colleagues to vote against the previous question so that we can add an amendment to this bill that will increase the minimum wage. I simply want to say that wages, decent wages, are a family value. People who earn the minimum wage today earn a little over $8,000 a year. The minimum wage has not been increased in 5 years. It is a 40-year low. One-third of the people on the minimum wage are the sole wage earner in their family. It will not cost jobs, as some have asserted. I met a woman in my district the other day, a single mother with 2 minimum wage jobs. She told me she was worried that her kids would not be a victim of a crime; she was worried they would perpetrate crimes. People cannot spend time with their family if they do not earn a decent wage. I urge Members to vote against this previous question, and I say to my friends on the other side, ``You've not heard the last of the minimum wage. I suspect we won't prevail on this vote. But we are going to bring it back and back and back and back until we finally prevail for America's families and workers.''

Mr. GEPHARDT

Mr. GEPHARDT. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to join Congresswoman DeLauro in cosponsoring the National Infrastructure Development Act. A fundamental governmental function is to create an economic environment conducive to growth and the creation of new opportunities and good jobs. No aspect of this function is more important than investing in the human and physical capital of the country. To prosper, our country must invest in upgrading our public works and transportation systems. With the growing importance of high value added industry and just-in-time manufacturing, a strong transportation system is more vital to economic growth than ever. Unfortunately, we face a $300-billion backlog in transportation investment alone. According to recent studies, our national investment in transportation falls $17 billion short of the amount needed just to maintain current levels of performance. During the 1980's, real Federal investment in infrastructure fell 16 percent. As the Federal Government reduced its investment, greater burdens fell on the states and municipalities. And many of them--not just inner cities or small towns but suburbs as well--have been unable to meet their needs. The result: falling productivity and a diminished quality of life. People spend hours in traffic jams instead of in offices or at home with their families. Traffic congestion now costs drivers in our largest cities over $40 billion per year. And long- promised road improvements needed to lower accident and fatality rates remain undelivered. While we have made some progress in recent years, numerous studies document the need for additional investment. Bringing our bridges and highways up to current safety standards would require a doubling of the current highway program. The Bipartisan Commission to Promote Investment in America's Infrastructure reported that America's total investment shortfall in its infrastructure amounts to between $40 billion and $80 billion per year. At the same time, Federal resources are limited. As discretionary spending caps are lowered, the Federal capital investment program will come under enormous pressure. The purpose of the National Infrastructure Development Act is to increase the public works investment critical to our long-term economic growth. It does so by using innovative financing and techniques already used in the private secton to encourage more investment in our roads, bridges and transit systems. The National Infrastructure Development Act establishes an innovative, investment-oriented Foreign infrastructure strategy to help States and municipal governments finance needed infrastructure. In creates a National Infrastructure Corporation to provide a broad array of financing for infrastructure projects. The Clinton administration's innovative investment program shows that there is tremendous interest among States and local governments in new methods that would make Federal capital dollars go further. In the past year along, the administration has given approval to over 70 innovative financing projects in over 30 States. Moreover, 20 States have expressed interest in establishing State infrastructure banks that would enable them to make more created use of Federal transportation funds. While the Congress in ISTEA provided greater flexibility in our highway program, we have only scratched the surface of the potential. The recent experiences with privately-financed toll roads in California and Virginia and my many discussions with State officials, business leaders, and local leaders lead me to believe that there is a strong need for creative Federal leadership. By leveraging private and other public sector monies, the corporation would substantially increase the amount of infrastructure created by each Federal public works dollar. Experts estimate that the corporation would leverage up to $10 in private investment for every $1 it receives from the Federal Government. Under this legislation, the corporation's capitalization would be $3 billion. It is anticipated that this could support generate tens of billions in new investment and hundreds of thousands of jobs, while eliminating hundreds of infrastructure bottlenecks that stifle growth. Congresswoman DeLauro has proposed an innovative mechanism to address the national problem of underinvestment in our public works. The legislation make a valuable contribution to understanding the issue and attaining this goal. I urge my colleagues to join in our effort to boost the Nation's public investment and productivity.

Mr. GEPHARDT

Mr. GEPHARDT. Mr. Speaker, I rise to honor my friend and fellow St. Louisan John Capellupo, who is retiring as president of McDonnell Douglas Aerospace after a career that has spanned much of the last half of this century. It is fitting to recognize Cap for his work on behalf of his country, his company, and his community. During his many years in the aerospace industry, Cap has built an impressive record of substantial and long-lasting contributions to our Nation through the technical development and management of some of our most important defense programs. He has shaped aircraft, missile, space, and technology programs that will provide for our national defense for decades to come. Born in Minnesota and raised in Illinois, John began his aerospace career with McDonnell Aircraft Co. in 1957. He cut his teeth on programs like the F-101B fighter, the Super Talos missile, and other programs we now read about in aviation or military history books. Several years later, in the mid-1970's, a well-seasoned and experienced John Capellupo began working on a revolutionary new aircraft program, one that would eventually give birth to the F/A-18 Hornet, the world's first fighter designed to master both aerial dogfights and ground attack missions. Ultimately, he would lead the Hornet program into maturity and, to this day, throughout industry, Government, and the military, he is known as the father of the F/A-18. In February 1989, John left the F/A-18 program to become president of McDonnell Douglas Missile Systems Co. In early 1990, he became deputy president of the company's commercial airliner operation, Douglas Aircraft Co., in Long Beach, CA. In May 1991, he returned to St. Louis to assume his current position as president of what is now McDonnell Douglas Aerospace. Thousands of the hard-working people from my district are employed by McDonnell Douglas and work for John. These are the men and women who design, test, and build F-15s for the Air Force; AV-8Bs, F/A-18s, and T-45s for the Navy and Marines Corps; and Harpoon, SLAM, and JDAM munitions. They respect and admire the man they know simply as Cap, who has led them successfully through both the good times and the bad times over the years. Personally, I have known Cap for almost 20 years. He and I have worked together on a broad range of issues, from those directly affecting our national security to ones that are vitally important to local St. Louis workers. Throughout this lengthy and productive association, I have developed the utmost respect for him as an individual and complete admiration for his professional achievements. I am honored to recognize him here today, and wish him a very happy retirement.

Mr. GEPHARDT

Mr. GEPHARDT. Mr. Chairman, I urge Members to vote against this legislation. There is a famous illusionist in America, his name is David Copperfield. He would be proud of this bill. This bill is an example of illusion. It acts like it is providing funds for education and for the environment and lots of other efforts that are needed in our country, and desired by people, but it is an illusion, because when we read the whole bill we find, and especially with the amendment that passed on the floor here today, that these moneys are never going to be provided. Let us leave the discussion, for the moment, of the bill. Let us talk about people in the country. I was in a school in my district last week. When I walked in the front door I was surrounded by parents, teachers, the principal, and students. They wanted to know why I had voted for the last continuing resolution that cut Head Start by 25 percent and cut chapter I by 25 to 30 percent. It is not the program that was important, it was the people that are important. They took me in classrooms of their hard-to-teach youngsters who could not learn in a setting of 30 children in the traditional style, but when they were set in front of a computer with a CD ROM with earphones, they turned on and they began to learn. The funding for that program was in part, in significant part, put together by chapter I. We are talking here today about flesh-and-blood human beings. Look, people in the country know the most significant challenge to this society is a standard of living, an economic pie in this country, that is no longer growing the way it used to grow. We all know that is the problem. It was brought out in the Republican Presidential primaries, it is brought out to each of us as we meet our constituents every day. What people do not want is for us to take away helps and proposals that will help them meet this challenge. Every American knows that educating our children to be productive citizens in this great international marketplace that we are all competitors in today is the most important help that the Federal Government can give to local and State government and to families and to people. So I beg Members today, refuse this legislation. The President is going to veto it, for the right reasons, not because he does not want to have an appropriation in place, but because it will hurt flesh-and- blood people, children of this country, that we need to be educating and helping the local and private sector work to educate these children to be private citizens. We can do better than this. Let us turn this piece of legislation down. Let us get into the negotiation with the President, as we should have been in it months ago, to find an answer to this appropriation that he can sign and would be a consensus between the Republican party and the Democrat Party to move this country in a positive direction. Vote this bill down. Let us get a bill on the floor the President will sign and is good for the American people.

Mr. GEPHARDT

Mr. GEPHARDT. Mr. Speaker, let me explain why this is a question of privilege and why this Congress must act to extend the debt limit, with no threats or conditions, to preserve the integrity of this entire Government. Rule IX of this House states very clearly that matters of privilege are those affecting the House collectively, those affecting its dignity and integrity, and those affecting the reputation of Members in their representative capacity. I ask every Member of this Congress today, how can the dignity and integrity of this Congress be maintained if we tear down the dignity and integrity of this country? How can any single Member of the 104th Congress maintain our reputation and honor if we go down in the history books as the Congress that broke America's word, the very first Congress that dared to tarnish America's trust in the world. Mr. Speaker, I know there are enough Democrats and Republicans to extend the debt limit and avoid this crisis right now, if we could only have that vote on the floor. It is unfair to all of us to have our rights, our reputations, our good names dashed for what I believe is a partisan purpose. Some of our Republican colleagues are threatening to default on America's financial obligations, to turn our backs on seniors who need their Social Security checks, taxpayers who deserve their refunds, people throughout the world have invested in America. There is no question that economic chaos would follow even a day of default. Interest rates on credit cards, car loans, and mortgages would skyrocket. The dollar would plummet. World financial markets could go into a tailspin. The damage would most likely be permanent, because such reckless delinquency would be without historical precedent in our country. We had a bloody Civil War in the last century, when America was torn in half, probably our greatest crisis. But all through it and after it, we kept our credit whole. During two world wars when our economy was stretched to the limit, we found room to honor our word to the people who had invested in our debt. Through recessions and a great depression, we have guarded America's financial faith and integrity because it is as sacred as the Constitution itself. This is not partisan hyperbole. Even the threat of default is damaging our credibility day by day, more and more with each passing day. We cannot afford to play politics with that credibility. We cannot afford to delay to stand for our national word and honor. What crisis is bigger than two world wars and the Great Depression? A disagreement over a budget. We Democrats think it is wrong to cut Medicare for huge tax breaks, especially since we think it is unnecessary to balance the budget. Republicans legitimately disagree. This is a valid debate. It is one we should resolve. But defaulting on our obligations, hurting millions of average Americans, damaging our most precious possession, our word and our credibility, is no way to resolve it. After all, shutting down the Government twice did not resolve it. Why would an international economic crisis resolve it? Mr. Speaker, parliamentary privilege exists for exactly this kind of crisis. This is more than an economic issue. It is a profoundly moral issue. If we bargain away America's integrity for the latest political squabble, if we can bring millions of families to the brink of economic crisis because we cannot agree on this year's budget, then in my opinion we cease to serve the United States of America, and we no longer have honor to maintain. This crisis, Mr. Speaker, is the very essence of privilege in this parliamentary body, and I urge the Chair, on behalf of our country and the promise and word of our country, to rule in its favor.

Mr. GEPHARDT. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to rule IX, I rise to a question of the privileges of the House and offer a resolution (H. Res. 356) to protect the creditworthiness of the United States and avoid default of the U.S. Government.

Mr. GEPHARDT

Mr. GEPHARDT. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to join the Autism Society of America [ASA] in recognition of January as National Autism Awareness Month. This has been a year of progress and achievement for the ASA. Last spring, in response to a request from Congress, the National Institutes of Health [NIH] held an Autism State-of-the-Science Conference. The conference brought researchers, clinicians and parents together in an effort to evaluate existing science and identify new areas for research. The conference highlighted the fact that autism affects some 400,000 Americans. While the exact cause of autism is still unknown, conference participants agreed that, at least for some individuals with autism, there appears to be a genetic link--one that could very probably be identified with the work being conducted by the NIH National Center for Human Genome Research. Undoubtedly the most important outcome of the conference was the conclusion that more research is desperately needed. Autism is a lifelong disability. Its social, emotional, and financial costs are staggering, ranging from $30,000 to $100,000 per year per person-- millions of dollars for each individual over the course of a normal lifespan. These numbers speak to the need for more research on the possible causes of autism as well as medical, social, and behavioral interventions. The ASA was the major force behind this conference. Backed by the strength and knowledge of its 18,000 parent members, the ASA has been the primary source of information and referral on autism and the largest collective voice representing the autism community. Founded over three decades ago, its members are now connected through a volunteer network of over 220 chapters in 48 States. Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me in congratulating the Autism Society of America for its 30 years of service and in sharing in their celebration of National Autism Awareness Month.

Mr. GEPHARDT

Mr. GEPHARDT. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate one of the great citizens of my hometown, St. Louis, on his retirement from a unique and valuable career of public service. Col. Clarence Harmon, who will celebrate his retirement later this week, had a truly distinguished career with the Metropolitan St. Louis Police Department. After working his way up through the ranks, he became the first African-American police chief in the city's history. Perhaps Chief Harmon's greatest contribution to the police department, and to the safety of our citizens, was his early and fervent commitment to community oriented policing. The success of this program can be seen as the crime rate in St. Louis declines--with the murder rate dropping by 18 percent last year. By encouraging the police to work hand in hand with the community to address problems before they become crises he has been instrumental in increasing community confidence and police effectiveness. I join my fellow St. Louisans in congratulating Chief Harmon on a job well done and wish him the best in his future endeavors.

Mr. GEPHARDT

Mr. GEPHARDT. Mr. Speaker, I concur in the report of the majority leader.

Mr. GEPHARDT

Mr. GEPHARDT. Mr. Speaker, it is with great reluctance and disappointment that I rise in support of this legislation. I have been disappointed by suggestions by those on the other side of the aisle that the President of the United States has somehow broken a promise or gone back on his word. I think that assertion is absolutely wrong. If we look back at the agreement and the original continuing resolution, the President did not agree to put down a 7-year budget scored by CBO by a certain time, no more than the Republican side agreed that they would put down a budget that he would score as being sufficient for his priorities of saving Medicare and Medicaid and not giving tax cuts to the wealthy paid for by the cuts in Medicare and Medicaid. The agreement was that when a negotiation yielded a hoped-for settlement or agreement, that that agreement would balance the budget in 7 years. The President has kept that agreement, not just the letter of that agreement, but the spirit of that agreement. When we go from working in the Congress, as we do under the Constitution, to either override a veto or to pass another bill, we move into a different realm. That realm is now a room in the White House. It is a negotiation in private to try to reach an agreement that is good for the country. I have been in the meetings. I find it abhorrent for people to say that he is not acting in good faith. That is not what I have seen and heard. I participated in the summit in 1990 with President Bush. The negotiators spent all of about an hour with President Bush in 1990. I am not complaining. We talked with Richard Darman who was his representative in the negotiation. In this negotiation, which has been going on for days, this President has sat in the room for at least 40 hours, face-to-face with the Speaker of the House and the Senate majority leader, and he is painstakingly working the details to find an agreement that, yes, will balance the budget in 7 years, by CBO judgment, but which will also meet his requirements of saving Medicare and Medicaid, saving education and the environment, and not slashing those programs to pay for tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans. Now because somehow the President has not passed somebody's sincerity test, and for what reason I cannot tell my colleagues, we now have before us a measure which makes no sense. Who can explain to anybody why we are going to bring people back to work and pay them, in some cases for doing nothing? Last week we paid people to stay at home; next week I guess we are going to pay them to do nothing. We ought to put another proviso in this to provide people crossword puzzles so they will have something to do in the office. This makes no earthly sense. I beg the majority to come to their senses. They have achieved what they wanted to achieve. This President is negotiating in good faith. In the name of sense and decency, let these negotiations go on, and let us get an honest compromise and a balanced budget that recognizes the priorities of the American people.

Mr. GEPHARDT

Mr. GEPHARDT. Mr. Speaker, let me explain why this is most certainly a question of privilege and why this Congress must finally reopen the Federal Government, with no threats or conditions, while we work to resolve the budget impasse that we are involved in. The fact is that while we fight over the Federal budget, millions of Americans are being held hostage; and while some Republicans have even suggested that no one has noticed this Government shutdown, I think that is simply fiscal fantasy, not reality. Think about the frail, home-bound seniors who will not have their meals delivered on time, or at all. Think about the elderly who will not have their Medicare claims processed, and the jobless who will not receive their unemployment checks. Right now, crucial cleanups of toxic waste dumps have been stopped, and the Government's efforts to crack down on workplace abuses and nursing home atrocities are grinding to a halt. If you ask me, that is more than wrong; it is an abuse of power. It is an abuse of the responsibility the American people have placed in this Congress, and in each of us, when they elected us to serve them, not just to throw ideological tantrums. Even the Republicans in the other body have rejected the radicalism of this shutdown. The extremist approach says, if the President will not agree to a budget that slashes Medicare to give huge tax breaks to the wealthy, we are going to make the whole country suffer until we get our way. This is, by far, the longest and most devastating Government shutdown in American history. According to news reports, the House Republicans have adopted this strategy because they want as a trump card the Government shutdown, that will not be as powerful as the President's veto pen. The Constitution never provided for this procedure. The Constitution merely asks that the Congress provide a budget that the President can and will sign, and it is now 94 days late in that basic responsibility. I have studied the Constitution carefully in the last days. I cannot find a page in the Constitution that says that if one group of people cannot have their way, they can shut down the whole Government for days and days and days. The Constitution I have read says that the Congress has two alternatives if there is a veto. One is to override the veto; the other is to present a new piece of legislation that the President will sign or veto. This Congress under this majority is saying, there is a third choice, and that choice is to let the Government stay down. Let us be very clear. This is a choice we are making; this is a clear choice that we are exercising. And it is a choice to say that we are not going to override the President's veto, we are not going to present new legislation, we are simply going to leave the Government down as a way of leveraging the President. The integrity of this Congress is in question. Right now every Member of this House is being prevented from fulfilling our most basic duties and obligations. That is why I believe this is a matter of privilege under rule IX of this House, which states very clearly that matters of privilege are those affecting the House collectively, as well as its dignity and integrity. In the words of the Republican leader of the other body, enough is enough. Good-faith negotiations on the budget have been taking place for days and are going on today. The damage has been done; the point has been made. I urge the House to adopt this resolution and pass the bill that has already been passed by the other body. It reopens the Government for the next 2 weeks so that people can be served while we negotiate in good faith, and I believe it restores some sense of responsibility to this House, the sense that this is a Government of the people, not a revolution. Mr. Speaker, parliamentary privilege exists for exactly this kind of crisis. It is the very essence of privilege, and I urge the Chair to rule in its favor.