Dick Gephardt

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.

Mr. GEPHARDT. Mr. Speaker, I rise to a question of the privileges of the House, and I offer a resolution pursuant to rule IX.

Mr. GEPHARDT

Mr. GEPHARDT. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. GEPHARDT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Speaker, I want to explain to the body that what is being asserted here is the bill that I a moment ago tried to get up, with a very important amendment. The amendment would put into place an expedited procedure for consideration of a balanced budget bill in the Senate, in the other body. It is my understanding from the Democratic leader of the other body that they will not accept this legislation. They would accept the legislation without the expedited procedure on the balanced budget, but they will not accept this. The Members on the other side are not in town to even be consulted to see if they could accept it, so this, in effect, is a poison pill in this piece of legislation that will not allow it to go forward. I would simply say that if the majority in this House is interested in the Federal Government going back to work, they will allow us to bring up the bill we tried to bring up a moment ago without the poison pill amendment, which will keep it from going through the Senate. If we insist on putting the poison pill in the bill, we are going to be back here next Wednesday right where we are today, without anybody in the Federal Government who is not working today working. We are going to be paying people to stay at home, which is unconscionable and against the interests of Federal employees and the interests of taxpayers.

Mr. GEPHARDT

Mr. GEPHARDT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Speaker, it is my purpose today to try to bring up the bill that has already been passed in the Senate, S. 1508, which as I understand it would put the Federal employees back to work, promising that they would be paid retroactively immediately and would get the Government up and running right away without any other conditions which might interrupt the passage of this legislation.

Mr. GEPHARDT. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent for the immediate consideration of the Senate bill (S. 1508) to assure that all Federal employees work and are paid.

Mr. GEPHARDT

Mr. GEPHARDT. Mr. Speaker, the President reached an agreement with the Republican leadership last night, both to begin intensive discussions about how to balance the budget on a rapid timetable and also that the Congress would pass a continuing resolution today to reopen the Government. Evidently, the extreme elements of the House Republicans have rejected this agreement and prevented the Government from reopening today. Mr. Speaker, the President is committed to balancing the budget in 7 years and doing so in a way that reflects our values and also our priorities: health care, education, the environment, tax fairness. He is prepared to talk with the Republican leaders today, tomorrow, the next day, as long as is necessary to get the job done. But Congress in the meantime should reopen the Federal Government. We cannot achieve this important goal through threats and ultimatums. The Republicans in Congress have threatened to keep the Government shut down unless the President agrees to deep and unconscionable cuts in Medicare and Medicaid. The President will never give in to these kinds of threats, nor should he. Mr. Speaker, this country has a responsibility not only to balance the budget, but also to protect our values and our interests as people. We must act in the interest of the 3.3 million veterans who will not receive their benefits checks due December 29 unless the Congress passes a continuing resolution by tomorrow morning. Our first obligation must be to these people, not to confrontational tactics or extreme agendas. Let me last say this. I believe that if this cannot move forward today, we are in a constitutional crisis. This is the first time in memory that the Speaker of the House and a majority in the House has said that the President's veto, being an extraordinary power, must be met on the side of the majority in Congress if they disagree with that veto, not with a two-thirds majority to override the veto, not with another bill that might gain the President's signature, but with shutting the Government down. Mr. Speaker, there is no language in the Constitution that says that is what the majority in Congress should do if they are displeased with the veto. The Constitution says we override the veto or we pass another bill that the President may or may not sign. It is irresponsible, it is unconscionable, it is immoral to have taxpayers' money to pay for services and then to say we are not going to give those services to people or, in the case of veterans, their checks for their pension, because we are in a pique with the President with his priorities on the budget. Mr. Speaker, I cannot believe this is happening to our country. In the name of sense, in the name of morality, in the name of logic, in the name of decency, I ask the Republican majority and the Speaker of this House to come to this floor today to pass a continuing resolution, to open this Government back up and to get in a room with the President of the United States and the other leaders in Congress and try to see as hard as we can if we can find a budget for this country for the next year, if not 7 years.

Mr. GEPHARDT. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, there is absolutely no justification for it. It is immoral. It is immoral to say that they will not get their benefits because there is a disagreement between the Congress and the President on a budget. That is not the adult way, the sensible way to handle this disagreement.

Mr. GEPHARDT. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.

Mr. GEPHARDT

Mr. GEPHARDT. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in deep disappointment with the Republican Members of this House. It's bad enough that they are pushing a budget plan that slices deeply into Medicare and Medicaid to shower tax breaks on the wealthiest Americans. It's bad enough that they won't accept the President's constitutional obligation to veto their extremist budget--and actually shut down the Government twice to try to keep it on the table. Now the Republicans want to waste 3 hours of the precious time in which we should be negotiating, by forcing a vote on a phony budget which even the Republicans admit is a sham. I suppose the Republican leadership thinks this is good politics. But let's face it: It's lousy Government. This pointless, vote has absolutely nothing to do with the real work of this Congress: reopening the Government with no threats or conditions; and then finding budget solutions, not just budget soundbites. This vote does nothing to end the Republicans' Government shutdown, which has denied millions of Americans the services they depend on--the services they pay for. This vote does nothing to balance the budget in 7 years--or in any number of years. In fact, this vote amounts to little more than a posture and a press release--a cynical attempt to play politics instead of rolling up our sleeves and getting down to work. Well, let me say this: America doesn't want deep Medicare cuts that will double seniors' premiums and force them to give up their doctors--all to give wealthy investors another tax windfall. America doesn't want to slash child health, child nutrition, and school lunches to stuff the stockings of the most affluent Americans. You never told them that was your agenda when they voted for you in last November's elections. In fact, when they find out what's really going on, hard-working families are overwhelmingly opposed to the Republican agenda. And I hate to be the one to tell you this, but nowhere in the United States Constitution does it say that the Congress gets to shut down the Government if it does not like the President's veto, and doesn't feel like compromising even 1 inch. You see, that seems to be the Speaker's belief. He said in yesterday's Wall Street Journal, and I quote, he ``had to find a trump to match--the President's veto.'' So while the Republicans are busy rewriting the Constitution and inventing partisan card games--children, seniors, and whole families are falling on the chopping block. You see, almost 1 month ago, the Republicans in this House made a pledge to protect Medicare, Medicaid, education, and the environment. Since then, they have failed that test--every day and in every way. So let us stop trying to change the subject. Let us stop these hollow political gestures. Let us start to work together, across party lines--not just to play accountant, and balance the budget at any cost and in any way---- But to balance the budget in a way that also balances our priorities. Frankly, if the Republicans can not do that--if it's more important to them to stall and showboat--then it's not Republicans or Democrats who lose--it's all of America.

Mr. GEPHARDT

Mr. GEPHARDT. Mr. Speaker, in my view this resolution is a colossal waste of time. I believe that a few weeks ago we voted on language that was essentially the same. This is repetitive. We voted on language that said the President and the Congress shall enact legislation the first session of the 104th Congress to achieve a balanced budget not later than fiscal year 2002, as estimated by the Congressional Budget Office, and the President and the Congress agree that the balanced budget must protect future generations, ensure Medicare solvency, reform welfare, provide adequate funding for Medicaid, education, agriculture, national defense, veterans, and the environment. Further, the balanced budget shall adopt tax policies to help working families and to stimulate future economic growth. Now after this was enacted, our friends on the majority side say the condition for even sitting down to talk, which is what we have to do to try to reach a budget agreement, is that the President has to put down a budget that meets CBO revised in 7 years. Why is there not an equal precondition on our part to sit down, that we have a recognition of the priorities that are important to the Democratic Party, Medicare, Medicaid, environment, education, and so on? At this rate we are never going to do other than waste time on the floor with resolutions like this. We are not going to ever sit down at a table as rational adults and begin to talk about our differences, which are fundamental. The gentleman from Ohio has said we are not making these things up. These are fundamental differences. But the only way we are going to get through it is if we can finally sit down at a table and have that conversation. We are not even going to be able to sit down unless we get rid of preconditions, your preconditions or our preconditions. Finally, let me say that all of this worry about CBO and OMB and all the talk on this side, and I admire the work that has been done to try and balance the budget; it is hard to do. But I will just remind Members that in 1990 we had a budget summit and with the best of intentions and the best of faith on both sides, we believed, and I looked at the documents the other day, that the deficit in 1995 would be $29 billion, as measured by CBO. We had another budget in 1993 that I know we all remember that the President brought and that all Democrats voted for that supposedly cut the deficit in half and did. So after two budgets, the first of which said that the deficit would be $29 billion in 1995, by CBO, we did not make it. Why did we not make it? It was not because of bad faith. It was not because we did not negotiate. It was not because anybody meant for there to be a deficit of over $300 billion this year or $165 billion after the 1993 budget deal. But because there is no way to prognosticate what the deficit is going to be 7 years from now, even 5 years from now. It is humanly impossible. So let us gather some humility about what we are doing. Let us gather some good faith about what each of us is trying to do. Let us sit down and go back to the resolution we passed 2 weeks ago, and let us look at both sides of the equation. We are not here just talking about how to balance the budget by CBO in 7 years. We got to talk about Medicare and Medicaid and education and the environment and whether or not we should be trying to do this with a tax break for the wealthiest Americans paid for by cuts on the poorest Americans and middle-class Americans. That is what we have to talk about. It is going to be hard to get it done. So let us stop wasting time with resolutions like this. Let us get to the table, and let us get the job done for the American people.

Mr. GEPHARDT

Mr. GEPHARDT. Mr. Speaker, I rise this morning on behalf of the entire Democratic Caucus to welcome the newest Member of the United States House of Representatives, Jesse Jackson, Jr., our colleague from the Second Congressional District of Illinois. At 30 years old, Mr. Jackson will be one of the youngest Members of the 104th Congress. But what he lacks in age, he more than makes up in commitment to justice and opportunity for the people of Illinois, Chicago, and all Americans. As field director for the National Rainbow Coalition, he has been on the front lines to fight for economic opportunity in America's cities and basic equality and justice everywhere. When he ran for Congress this year, he pledged to dedicate himself to the kind of issues that are at the heart of the Democratic Party and America. Protecting Medicare and Medicaid, raising the minimum wage, creating jobs, and fighting to heal the divisions that too often exist among races and between genders in our country. I am proud to serve with Jesse Jackson, Jr., and I know that he will do remarkable things for the people of his district, bringing all of the energy, enthusiasm, and dedication to bear on the problems we face. So I say to the gentleman from Illinois, welcome to the people's House, and we all look forward to working with you as we together do the people's business. REPORT ON RESOLUTION WAIVING POINTS OF ORDER AGAINST CONFERENCE REPORT

Mr. GEPHARDT

Mr. GEPHARDT. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the gentleman from the State of Illinois, Mr. Jesse L. Jackson, Jr., be permitted to take the oath of office today. His certificate of election has not arrived, but there is no contest and no question has been raised with regard to his election.

Mr. GEPHARDT

Mr. GEPHARDT. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, let me say to the Members tonight, I think we have gone up and down the hill of whether this says support. The real important vote tonight was whether or not we would cut off the funds, and I know there were many Members in the body that voted to do that. I respect their vote. Once that decision was made, we then had a resolution which set out people's concerns about what was happening and did, I agree, set out a measure of support for the troops. Our intent in presenting this resolution was not to change the editorial content, not to go back over the decision of whether or not we would cut off the funds but, as we did after the Persion Gulf debate in 1991, try to get a bipartisan, unanimous if we could, expression of this body that we support the troops, so that the people in the field leading the troops could have a piece of paper that would say unequivocally that the people of the United States, however they may be divided on what was happening and how it was happening, supported, without question, what they were doing. We passed almost identical wording in 1991, 399 to 6. And I would ask the gentleman from Indiana, if we have an opportunity before we quit, to ask unanimous consent again, and I would ask the Members who wanted to object to rethink it, because I think it would be a good thing for us as a Congress tonight to say to our people there, who will be in harm's way, everybody agrees, we hope no one dies, we hope no one is injured, but that Congress in a bipartisan way wants to unequivocally say tonight, after all of our disputes have been settled one way or the other, that we stand behind our troops. Let me just say one thing in closing, and then I will try to get out of the way so the gentleman can perhaps try to do this again. Alexis de Tocqueville once talked about America's morality. He said this: I sought for the greatness and generosity of America in her commodious harbors and ample rivers, and it was not there. I sought for it in her democratic Congress and her matchless Constitution, and it was not there. Not until I went into the churches of America and heard her pulpits flame with righteousness did I understand the secret of her generosity and power. America is a great country because she is good, and if America ever ceases to be good, America will cease to be great. Ladies and gentlemen of the Congress, this is a good country, and it is a great country, and for all of our differences tonight on what is happening, we have made a choice not to stop this deployment. I ask the Members to try to come together tonight in a bipartisan way and in an unequivocal way to say to our troops, however we may differ about what is happening, we stand behind each of you through every minute and day of this great exercise.

Mr. GEPHARDT. I yield to the gentleman from New York.

Mr. GEPHARDT. I yield to the gentleman from Florida, who served 6\1/ 2\ years in a prison in Vietnam.

Mr. GEPHARDT. I yield to the gentleman from Indiana.

Mr. GEPHARDT

Mr. GEPHARDT. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the resolution congratulating Northwestern University's championship football team, the Wildcats, for its 1995 Big Ten Conference Championship and for its invitation to the 1996 Rose Bowl. For the second time in its 122-year history, Northwestern is going to a bowl game. The 1995 winning season represents an unprecedented turnaround for Northwestern football. Northwestern University has won the Big Ten Conference Championship with a perfect record in conference play. It recently received its invitation to the Rose Bowl. We will all be watching New Year's Day as the Wildcats play our friends at USC. We will all be cheering with Coach Gary Barnett, just as we cheered 4 years ago, when he first came to Northwestern and promised to take ``the Purple to Pasadena.'' We celebrate with University's President Henry Bienen, Coach Barnett and his dedicated and hard working team of coaches and athletes. We commend Northwestern University for its Big Ten Championship and for its invitation to the Rose Bowl. Northwestern's academic excellence has never been doubted; now let no one doubt its athletic excellence. Everyone wondered how this miracle occurred, but for Northwestern fans, it wasn't a question of how, but a question of when. Mr. Speaker, I encourage all my colleagues to join us in celebrating Northwestern football.

Mr. GEPHARDT

Mr. GEPHARDT. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 2525, the Charitable Gift Annuity Relief Act, and H.R. 2519, the Philanthropy Protection Act. These proposals will provide needed clarity to our securities and antitrust laws, and their relation to gift annuities, one of the oldest and most common fundraising methods used by charities throughout the United States. Presently, one isolated lawsuit in Texas against a charity has been broadened to a class-action suit that has certified over 2,000 nonprofit defendants nationwide. Without this legislation, these nonprofit organizations are vulnerable to lawsuits based on a perceived violation of Federal antitrust and securities laws. This litigation, and the range of nonprofit defendants involved in the lawsuit, underscores the need to draw a distinction between annuity arrangements offered by commercial entities and those offered by charities. St. Louis University is one of these charitable organizations. Planned giving programs, such as charitable gift annuities, account for roughly 50 percent of its fundraising efforts. The pending lawsuit has jeopardized its ability to offer potential donors these types of programs. Other nonprofit organizations are alarmed as to how they will fund their programs in the future. In addition to S.L.U., the Salvation Army of St. Louis, The Boys and Girls Town of Missouri, and the Cardinal Glennon Children's Hospital are just a few of the nonprofit groups in my district affected by this issue. The legal defense fees for the defendants in the pending suit is over $1 million a month, draining charities of precious dollars that could be used to meet their worthy goals. Mr. Speaker, the donors who enter into charitable gift annuities do not act to make a profitable return on an investment. Rather, they are acting because they support the mission of the charity, and donate their money to that end. I am concerned with cuts in Federal spending that threaten the ability of our Nation's nonprofit organizations to continue their philanthropic programs. We should not compound their situation by failing to respond to the legal vulnerability they face under laws intended to regulate commercial securities. This legislation, supported by the Securities and Exchange Commission, will protect charities from securities and antitrust-based lawsuits, and allow them to raise funds in the years to come. I strongly urge passage of these bills.

Mr. GEPHARDT

Mr. GEPHARDT. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to defeat this bill, which is nothing less than a dagger in the heart of the Bosnian peace process. In fact, this bill is without historical precedent. Never before has Congress banned U.S. involvement in a peacekeeping effort--before peace was even secured. And this is no time to start. There is no one who believes more strongly than I that Congress must have a vote on any deployment of United States troops in Bosnia. But that's not what this vote is about. The President has already promised us that vote--after a peace agreement is in place. What this bill does is something more destructive. It undermines the very fragile--and until now, very successful--peace talks that are occurring in Dayton, OH. Is there a single Member of this body who really wants to damage those talks? Who is willing to put his name on a bill that would pull the rug out from under our negotiators, and give both sides the incentive to continue the bloodshed, the killing, the age-old animosities? Our Secretary of State has said that this vote: ``could be misinterpreted and give the parties reason for delay and hesitation.'' The Washington Times has urged the Republican Members of this House not to take this vote today, ``before there is even something to vote on,'' because doing so would have ``repercussions among our allies, our foes, and our trading partners.'' Is that what we want? Do we want to tell the Serbs and the Moslems that our negotiators didn't have the support of the Congress, or the country? That we're ready to revoke their promises before they are even made? Let's remember our ultimate goal in Bosnia: to finally stop the death and destruction. To end some of the worst atrocities since World War II. To stand up for peace throughout Europe. It's right for America to do this, because if we don't lead the world, no one else will. [[Page E 2227]] It is because of America's leadership that we have democracy in Russia. And racial equality in South Africa. And democracy in Haiti. Would we have wanted to bargain that away to make a poorly timed political point? I urge you to vote no on the Hefley bill--so that peace talks can at least proceed, without the baggage this bill would impose. Then we can have our vote on the proper role of U.S. troops. And we will know that we first gave the peace process a real chance to succeed. Defeat this bill.

Mr. GEPHARDT

Mr. GEPHARDT. Ladies and gentleman of the House, let me not today repeat what I said before about this budget. I think everybody knows my criticisms of the budget. Everybody has heard the arguments on the other side, and they have been good on both sides. I think that yesterday when we reached this agreement, everybody won. Everybody got to put into the resolution their beliefs about how this will hopefully come out. It was a compromise in the truest sense of the word. More importantly, yesterday America won and the American people won. Our form of Government is one where people with very different beliefs, from very different backgrounds, from very different parts of the country have to eventually come together and work together to find consensus and compromise. That is hard to do, because all of us hold our beliefs strongly. Both parties have very strong beliefs that they hold dearly. John Kasich was right the other night when he said we are doing now that people sent us here to do. They sent us to fight for them. They sent us to fight for their beliefs, and they sent us to fight for our beliefs. And kind of the irony of our form of government is that when we finally get down to that grand compromise, what we started to do yesterday and we are going to have to do a lot more of in the next 3 or 4 or 5 weeks, people get put off because they think we are compromising. People get mad because we are compromising, although it is precisely what we all have to try to do to make this great country work. So I guess I wanted to rise tonight not to argue the budget again. We have kind of done that. I rise tonight to talk to all of us as human beings, and to say to each of us and to myself, in the last days, and it is no one's fault, but in the last days things have gotten awfully personal and awfully tough in this body, and people, including myself, have said things that probably, with better judgment, we would not want to say. I ask all of us, Republicans and Democrats alike, in the days ahead, which are going to be tough, that we depersonalize this discussion. I can disagree with you without being disagreeable. I do not always accomplish that myself, but I should do that. I can disagree with you vehemently and still respect you and like you as a human being, because I believe all of our motives are good. Our motive is to help the country. Our motive is to make the country better. Our motive is to improve the American society and our people. So I just ask, as we go through these next 3 or 4 or 5 very difficult weeks, that we continue to respect one another and like one another, and admire one another as Americans and as patriots and as well-meaning human beings, as we disagree, so that at the end we have the ability to stretch and to move to that compromise which the American people want us so desperately to achieve. We can do this. We can do it. We are smart enough, we are strong enough, we are good enough to find that compromise. With God's will and help, we will do it.

Mr. GEPHARDT

Mr. GEPHARDT. Mr. Speaker, and then we would be returning, I take it, on the Monday or Tuesday after Thanksgiving?

Mr. GEPHARDT. Mr. Speaker, to reiterate, Members who plan to leave Washington early Tuesday morning and get a plane to get home for the Thanksgiving holiday?

Mr. GEPHARDT. Mr. Speaker, does the gentleman know if there is any chance that we could finish our business for the week by tomorrow night?

Mr. GEPHARDT. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Kasich], distinguished chairman of the Committee on the Budget, to ask about the schedule for tomorrow.