Dick Gephardt

Mr. GEPHARDT

Mr. GEPHARDT. I thank the gentleman. Finally, you have said that the House will meet at 10 a.m. Wednesday instead of 11. I assume that you have the authority to effect this meeting time change. Traditionally as you know the minority has been consulted and agreed to changes in the meeting time. I would hope we could continue with that practice. I realize what your concern is. We will try to work with you in every way that we can. But it would be helpful if we could talk about that before it is announced.

Mr. GEPHARDT. I thank the gentleman. Second, I want to reiterate our desire to be able at whatever time it can be made available to get a projection of when you think the other pieces of legislation in the contract may be But it would help us a lot if we could have that projection so we can begin thinking about what is coming and when it is coming and provide for that.

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

Mr. GEPHARDT. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from California.

Mr. GEPHARDT. I yield to the distinguished majority leader.

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

Mr. GEPHARDT. Mr. Speaker, it is my understanding, and I do not know this for a fact, but there may be a Member on our side who will ask for a vote. I want to make that warning. I do not know that, but I want to make the warning. However, I would remind the distinguished majority leader, the chairman of the Committee on Rules, that it is my understanding he has the unilateral authority to roll the vote on the rule until 4:30 or 5 o'clock. That would not be something we would object to.

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

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

Mr. GEPHARDT. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the distinguished gentleman from Texas [Mr. Armey] for the purpose of discussing the schedule for next week.

Mr. GEPHARDT

Mr. GEPHARDT. Mr. Speaker, Members of the House, I want to rise to comment on this rule. I do not support the rule and will vote against it, but I want to make my feelings, and I think the feelings of most of our Members on our side, clear. I have been quoted--I am led to understand--about what I say about these rules and what my thoughts are, so I want to make it crystal clear. We are again and again being met with rules that are not what I define as open rules with a free ability to have a lengthy debate about very important issues. Time and time again on the contract items we are being met with time-limited rules, open in the sense that any amendment can be brought up in that time, but time limited. Now I understand why there is a feeling on the Republican side that there needs to be time limits, but frankly the reason we are in this bind is because the Republican side has decided that this contract has to be considered in 100 days. It is a self-imposed restriction. I say to my colleagues, ``You have the right to do it, and I accept that, but that doesn't mean that on our side we have to agree with the idea that there is a compulsion or an urgency about getting all this legislation considered in 100 days.'' It is self-imposed. There is no rationality for it. No one would be hurt if this took 125 days. The other body has yet to finish the second contract item and is likely to be the rest of the year doing the rest of the items. It would not hurt us to go 125 days. But I say to my colleagues, ``I accept the idea that it is your House to run and you'll set the rules. I understand that. But don't ask me to accept the idea or agree with the idea that 10 hours is enough for this bill.'' On two other bills we had, the law enforcement bills, we had 8 or 10 Members from both sides of the aisle who did not get to bring up their amendment because the time ran out. So we are left, when my colleagues do these time limits with open rules, with the ranking member and the chairman becoming substitute rules committees in trying to work out unanimous consent requests to try to get a time limit on different amendments. Now maybe that is the best way to do it; I do not know. It might be better if we could come to the Committee on Rules, and have a discussion and try to time-limit amendments, or maybe even in some cases certain amendments, if we were able to do that. But whatever is done, please do not come to the floor and say that I have agreed to this type of a rule or the Democrats are pleased with this type of a rule. Mr. Speaker, we are not. We would far prefer to have more time for such important legislation so that Members who have amendments on both sides of the aisle would be assured of the ability to come here and get at least 20 minutes or a half an hour to discuss their amendments. I do not think that is too much to ask. This is important legislation. I disagree with the idea that this is all straightforward, cut and dried, everybody agrees. They do not. This is going to have far- reaching impacts, just as every other piece of legislation we have had up, so I urge the other side to let us have more time. Let us consider the idea that 100 days is not magic. The country will not fall apart if we do not get every one of these things considered in 100 days. Let us take the time, both in committee and on the floor, to allow as full, and free, and open a debate of these very important issues and the amendments that people want to bring so that the American people get the best possible product they can get.

Mr. GEPHARDT

Mr. GEPHARDT. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to urge my colleagues to reject this defense supplemental and to vote for the Obey substitute. I urge all of us to step back for a moment and take a step back from the technical details of the bill, and to realize that we are voting today on something much larger and much more important than the details of this bill. This vote is about the trust of the American people. It is about a Congress that keeps its promises, and is not afraid to match rhetoric with reality. Last month, Mr. Chairman, we passed a balanced budget amendment. Now we are being asked to approve our first spending bill since passing that amendment, our first opportunity to make good on that commitment. However, the defense bill that has been offered by the majority does not honor that commitment, it corrupts it. It does not draw down the Federal deficit, it increases it by $645 million over the next 5 years. In my opinion, Mr. Chairman, it does not preserve the trust of the American people, it trades it away in a flash of red ink. Mr. Chairman, I ask Members this question: Can we afford to say one thing and then a few days later do the opposite? Is that really our idea of leadership? This is not serious public policy, Mr. Chairman, it is bold-faced hypocrisy. I may not have agreed with the final language of the balanced budget amendment, but I believed my colleagues when they said they would lay out a diet of fiscal responsibility. However, this spending bill is not a diet, it is a spending binge. Thankfully, there is a choice. We can support the Obey substitute, which meets America's needs without busting the budget. This substitute provides every penny our Defense Department needs to maintain readiness, and it actually cuts the deficit by $128 million next year alone, without increasing the deficit at all over the next 5 years. Best of all, if we choose this substitute, we choose serious policy over hypocrisy. Mr. Chairman, whether we like it or not, this first opportunity after the balanced budget amendment sends a powerful message. I urge Members to make it a message of responsibility, a message of commitment, a message of reason, not one of recklessness. There can be no good reason to bust this budget after the balanced budget amendment. Vote for the Obey substitute, vote for a bill that will balance the budget and keep the budget in balance after we said in the Constitution that that is what we wanted to do.

Mr. GEPHARDT

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

Mr. GEPHARDT. I yield to the gentleman.

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

Mr. GEPHARDT. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Kanjorski].

Mr. GEPHARDT. Mr. Speaker, the purpose of my request is to inquire about the schedule for next week. I yield to the gentleman from Texas, the distinguished majority leader.

Mr. GEPHARDT. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, perhaps I could ask a few questions. First on staying late. The gentleman said perhaps on Tuesday and on Wednesday. By ``late,'' can you give Members a sense of about what time?

Mr. GEPHARDT. The other question really involves the rules and maybe the distinguished gentleman from the Committee on Rules could be involved in this discussion. We last week met with the requirement to deal with an open rule but in go over that debate again. I think we have well covered that from both viewpoints. But I guess I am asking what we can expect on the rules next week. What kind of a rule would the gentleman expect on the defense supplemental and the rescission bills? Will they be governed under one rule and will that rule be open and be time limited? And the rule on the regulatory transition moratorium, would that be an open rule and would it be time limited?

Mr. GEPHARDT. Reclaiming my time, you are saying in both the case of the supplemental and the rescission bills and the case of regulatory transition, you are anticipating, and I understand you have not done it yet, but you are anticipating open rules with time restraints?

Mr. GEPHARDT. Finally, maybe I did not hear it. I was asking about whether the defense supplemental and the rescission bills would be governed under one rule.

Mr. GEPHARDT. I yield to the gentleman.

Mr. GEPHARDT. Can the gentleman say that he expects to start amendments on H.R. 450 on Thursday? Do you intend to get to the amendments on that bill on Thursday?

Mr. GEPHARDT

Mr. GEPHARDT. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to recognize the contributions and work of Jerrel D. Smith of St. Louis, MO, on the occasion of his retirement. and Health for the Union Electric Co. of St. Louis, MO, retired on January 31. He will assume a new role as environmental policy consultant to the senior management of the Union Electric Co. In his 37 years of service to Union Electric Co., Mr. Smith has played an active role in assisting Federal, State, and local legislative and regulatory entities in establishing environmental protection. During his career, he has participated in the formation and implementation of many environmental laws. Of particular note was his work with us on the Clean Air Act, which will help us achieve reductions in air pollution in a way that achieves tough new standards in a cost-effective manner. This work will save ratepayers in eastern Missouri many millions of dollars. The 104th Congress acknowledges the many achievements of Jerrel Smith. We thank him for his continuing contributions to the development of effective national policies--and wish him best of luck in his new endeavors.

Mr. GEPHARDT

Mr. GEPHARDT. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in disappointment and sorrow that this bill which I think is terribly ill-advised will be passed by our House of Representatives. I have served in this House for 18 years and I have witnessed the fiercest debates on both domestic and foreign policy. But I have seen that even though we have differed sometimes on foreign and defense policy, that for all the time that I have been here and before, this has been a country, this has been a House of Representatives that could find its way to support a bipartisan internationalist foreign and defense policy for our country. I think back to the 1920's when there were isolationists in both parties, but America finally rejected isolationism and fought World War II, and after World War II came together in the greatest act of compassion in the world, and sensibility, and supported the Marshal Plan. Republicans and Democrats together. We formed the United Nations, whereas in the early part of the century we decided we did not want the League of Nations and backed out of the world after World War II and in a bipartisan way we created a multilateral action for world peace. After the Marshal Plan and the United Nations, we fought a cold war for 45 years, and together, Republicans, Democrats, Americans, we stayed involved as the leader of this world and rejected isolationism, rejected pulling back into our borders, rejected the idea that we could be self-sufficient, alone in this world. The crowning achievement of these years was no matter how much we squabbled about our internal domestic policies, when it came to the shores of the United States we came together, and we decided together with the American people what our policy would be. I believe that if this bill passes today we put all of that history, all of that partnership, and all of that progress at risk. When you try to politicize the actions of the United Nations and our relationship with the United Nations, when you strain to reinvent a cold war that no longer exists, when you politicize NATO and who should be in NATO, and who should be out, and who should decide it, when you politicize the decisions in NATO between the Congress and the President, and when you politicize arms control and try to reinvent nostalgically a weapon system that may have been appropriate 10, 15 years ago but is not appropriate to the threats we meet today, then you put at risk all of that progress, all of that achievement which is the crowning achievement of our country. Theodore Roosevelt once said we have no choice, we the people of the United States, as to whether we shall play a great part in the world. That has been decided for us by fate, by the march of events. All that we can decide is whether we play it well, or ill. My friends in the House, I think if this bill passes, we will play it ill and not well. This bill is not about campaigns and about pollsters and what may achieve some more votes or some more popularity among some in the country or in the world. It is about our conscience. It is about our achievement together of a foreign and defense policy that has made the American people secure. It is not about campaigns. It is about our conscience, and if we allow that conscience to be dictated by opinion polls, if we allow it to be bought and sold for votes, then God help this Congress and God help this United States of America.