Dick Gephardt

Mr. GEPHARDT

Mr. GEPHARDT. Mr. Speaker, I apologize to any Member who felt that this procedure was wrong, and any part that we took in setting the procedure was not meant to knock anybody out of expressing their view. I am going to vote to table. I am as troubled and frustrated as anyone in this country and in this body about what is happening in China. The gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Wolf], the gentlewoman from California [Ms. Pelosi], the gentleman from Nebraska [Mr. Bereuter], and the others who have talked on this issue and been vocal on this issue feel as strongly as anybody in this country. The truth is none of us know what to do to get China to change. We do not want it to be another Soviet Union and we do not want a 40-year cold war with the largest country in the world. We are all horribly frustrated that this country does not seem to be able to change, to give its people human rights. Whatever happens on this vote to table, and I believe we will have a vote, and probably we should have a vote, but whatever happens, China must get one message from this debate, and that is that this country will not stand by forever and have people's human rights violated to the extent this country is violating people's human rights. The day will come, if there is not change, when all 435 people in this body will say enough is enough, and we will not go forward with trading with people that will not give people basic human rights. Time is running out for our patience. We say to China with one voice, Democrat, Republican, liberal, conservative, and moderate, ``Please, come into the world of nations, give people human rights, give people basic human decency.''

Mr. GEPHARDT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California [Mr. Lantos].

Mr. GEPHARDT

Mr. GEPHARDT. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not present.

Mr. GEPHARDT. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. GEPHARDT. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this resolution. Obviously, I have co-authored it with the distinguished majority leader. As you know, this resolution directs the inspector general of the House to continue certain aspects of the audit in those areas where Price Waterhouse auditors have recommended further examination. I join in the introduction of this resolution to fulfill the promise of the audit and to ensure that all questions raised in the course of the audit are fully and completely answered. I urge all Members to support this resolution. As has been made clear in the audit, the systems and procedures of the House during the audit period were [[Page H 7151]] outdated and incomplete. This occurred even though for the entire period of the audit the House Finance Office was under the direction of the nonpartisan administrator picked by Speaker Foley, Mr. Michel, the minority leader, and myself, in a bipartisan way. The auditors found that the financial information available to them simply did not provide explanations for all transactions and procedures they reviewed. As a result, the auditors were unable to draw final conclusions about certain transactions and procedures. The auditors themselves have recommended that the House undertake a further review to resolve these differences. The passage of this resolution will accomplish this. The resolution directs the inspector general to finish the work and to reach the conclusions that are necessary to determine if any further action by any relevant House committee is required. Under the resolution, the inspector general will report no later than November 30 of this year the results of his further review. These reports will be referred to the relevant House committees for appropriate action. This is the right course of action for the House. Any other approach would result in the premature release of information that is incomplete, and, worse, potentially misleading. If the auditors themselves found the information inconclusive, how can Members be expected to be able to explain the questions remaining in the audit? As the Speaker and I stated in our ``Dear Colleague'' letter circulated today, we believe that many of the areas of concern identified by the auditors can be explained as products of the inadequate systems and procedures of the House. I believe that this further review will result in additional improvements to the management of the operations of the House. This is the reason that 434 Members of the House voted to undertake this audit in the first place. We must allow the audit to be completed as it was intended. I urge all Members to vote in favor of this resolution. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the distinguished gentleman from California [Mr. Fazio], distinguished ranking member of the Committee on House Oversight.

Mr. GEPHARDT

Mr. GEPHARDT. And would the gentleman further yield. I saw in a flyer that was on the floor from the distinguished majority whip earlier in the evening that you believe that the House will be in session now on Monday, July the 17th, and votes would begin at 5 p.m. Is that still your intention?

Mr. GEPHARDT. Mr. Speaker, I ask for this time to inquire of the distinguished majority leader about the schedule for the rest of this evening and tomorrow.

Mr. GEPHARDT. I thank the gentleman. [[Page H 6896]]

Mr. GEPHARDT. Mr. Speaker, if I could ask the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Armey], does the gentleman have a number of bills he would like to complete by late tomorrow night so that we could leave for the week, or do you know that at this point?

Mr. GEPHARDT

Mr. GEPHARDT. Mr. Speaker, I yield our remaining 1 minute to the gentleman from New York [Mr. Nadler].

Mr. GEPHARDT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Kentucky [Mr. Ward].

Mr. GEPHARDT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Bonior].

Mr. GEPHARDT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Montana [Mr. Williams].

Mr. GEPHARDT. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. GEPHARDT. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the distinguished gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Bonior], the Democratic whip.

Mr. GEPHARDT. I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I would like to respond to the case that the distinguished gentleman from Ohio has made on behalf of the Republican side. I would like to respond to both what is happening here procedurally and what is happening substantively. First, the procedure: The gentleman is correct in saying that in past Congresses there has been a desire on the part of the majority party on certain key committees to have a larger ratio than the ratio represented by the members of the House. Many times in the past, we have had 60 percent, as Democrats on the Committee on Ways and Means and on the Committee on Rules. But I would point out that in all of those times, the ratio that the Democrats represented in the House was higher than the 53 percent that the Republicans now represent as part of the House. Second, when this year started, I did go to the Speaker and I said, as a result of the change, we have got five members of the Committee on Ways and Means who are Democrats who will come off. We understood that. That was part of changing the guard. But I asked if the committee could be enlarged so that more of the then- sitting members of Ways and Means could be kept on Ways and Means. And, yes, one was allowed to stay, and four were knocked off. But when we had that discussion, it was represented to me that the chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means, the gentleman from Texas, very much wanted the committee to stay at [[Page H 6718]] the number 21 and 15 represents or 36 and that he in no way would allow the committee to get any larger than that. But yet here we come, a few weeks later, when there is the possibility of someone switching and this action is taken. My colleagues, I think it is wrong. I think it is wrong from a procedural standpoint. It is wrong in terms of the precedents of this House. And I think it is wrong for people to be moving with this out there. I am not impugning anyone's motives. Anyone can switch parties at any time. That is a legitimate thing to have happen. But it should be for the right reasons, not for the wrong reasons. And as long as I am leader on the Democratic side, I am going to fight for the rights of the minority on procedure and on ratios on committees, and we will continue that fight. Let me talk about the substance. What I think is really going on here is an attempt, as was pointed out in the Washington Times on Friday, June 30, 1995, to add a Republican member of senior status to shield freshman Republicans from having to vote for deep, deep cuts in Medicare. I quote, ``Mr. Laughlin likely will provide support for potentially unpopular reductions in Medicare benefits, should GOP leaders give three committee freshmen, all of whom won with less than 51 percent of the vote, permission to vote `no.' '' My colleagues, what is about to happen in Medicare are the largest changes to Medicare in the history of the program. If the hints we are reading in the weekend press are right, we are talking about huge increases in the premiums for Medicare recipients. If that is what is going on here, a stacking of the committee in order to make sure those cuts go through, then this is substantively wrong. If Members on your side of the aisle believe in these kinds of changes in Medicare, everybody should vote for it. Why should we be shielding Members from voting for these kinds of cuts? Finally, let me tell you what I really think is going on here. In reading the comments of leaders on the Republican side for some time now, not just lately, I think there is an effort here to make Medicare a voluntary program. I think there is an effort to get rid of Medicare. I think that is what is really at stake. What I am really concerned about is that these deep, important changes in Medicare are going to try to be slipped through in 3 or 4 days in September. If we are going to have changes in this program of this kind, bring the changes out now in July. Give the American people the right to know what is happening to this program. Make them part of this debate. Let them be part of the vote of what happens to Medicare. We should not change this program and make it voluntary without involving the American people. And I can tell you, this party will fight those changes every step of the way. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time. parliamentary inquiry

Mr. GEPHARDT

Mr. GEPHARDT. Mr. Speaker, I wish to inquire about the schedule. I yield to the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Armey], the distinguished majority leader, to announce the schedule for the rest of the day.

Mr. GEPHARDT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman.

Mr. GEPHARDT. Mr. Speaker, I would simply inquire of the gentleman, this obviously means that changes in committee assignments will be held until after the Fourth of July recess?

Mr. GEPHARDT

Mr. GEPHARDT. Mr. Speaker, I rise to inquire of the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Armey] regarding the schedule for next week, July 10.

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

Mr. GEPHARDT. Mr. Speaker, the majority leader indicated his intent to bring up a committee naming resolution before considering the Foreign Operations appropriations bill on Monday, July 10. Am I correct, Mr. Speaker, In assuming the gentleman is referring to the majority party's intent to seat the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Laughlin] on the Committee on Ways and Means?

Mr. GEPHARDT. Mr. Speaker, as I have said to the gentleman, and all Members should understand, there may be a large number of votes that evening after the starting time, and Members should be advised of that possibility.

Mr. GEPHARDT. I wish the distinguished majority leader and all Members a productive, successful, and restful Fourth of July district work period.

Mr. GEPHARDT

Mr. GEPHARDT. Mr. Speaker, I urge defeat of this conference report for two very simple and understandable reasons. I believe this conference report and this budget is extreme. I do not believe that we have to, in order to balance the budget, take the kind of actions that are being taken in this budget. Mr. Speaker, I also believe that it is a budget that is unfair and I say that for one simple reason above others. If you take the tax break that is in this budget, it comes to about $245 billion over the period of years. If you take the Medicare cut, it is a little more than that; about $270 billion. As I will explain in a moment, the cuts in Medicare will be extremely harmful to ordinary American families. If we could reduce the tax break down to a more manageable level and focus it at middle-income families, we would not need to have Medicare cuts that are so severe and so deep in this budget. Let me be more precise about what this means to ordinary families. Let me take what it means to the COLA increase on millions of seniors in our country. In the year 2002, they will get an annual COLA of about $327, but because of the out-of-pocket increases that must be caused with this large of a cut in Medicare, they will face a cut in their COLA of $157. In other words, half their COLA in the year 2002 will be taken away. My colleagues may say $150 is not a lot of money, but remember we are talking about people who are living on Social Security. It is the only check they get. It is the only income they have. And why are we doing this? Why does it need to be this deep of a cut? Again, because we have a $245 billion tax break, over half of which we believe goes to families who earn $100,000 a year or more. That is extreme. That is unfair and that change, that one simple change in this budget, would have this kind of impact. I want to take my colleagues back to people. This has to be looked at in terms of real people. Cecil Whitener and his wife Ethel live in Afton, MO, in my district. He fought in five major battles in World War II. He worked hard in a grocery store. He paid his taxes and paid into Medicare and Social Security all of his life. In the year 2002, their benefit in Medicare will be $850 a year less. Or put it another way, they will have to come up with $850 more than they would under present law. That is a real life impact to these people. But before we assume that this cut in Medicare is simply a problem for these folks who are today's senior citizens, let us understand that the impact of this is for all American families. This is Gina Stacer, who is trying to save for her twins' education. She and her husband live paycheck to paycheck. Her parents pay their medical bills with Medicare and social security. Now, think about her and her husband and these kids and think about their middle-class status and what is going to happen if this budget conference report passes. It means people who are in middle-class squeeze are going to be squeezed even much more than they have been in the past because if she has to help pick up $850 for her parents because of the cut in Medicare and because she gets cut in school lunches or cut in student loans where these kids hopefully soon will be able to go to school, she gets hit from both ends. And so what is now middle-class [[Page H 6586]] squeeze becomes middle-class squash, and that is something that we should not allow to happen to the middle-income people of this country. I say to you, my friends, we can do better than this. We can put together a budget that is fair for middle-income Americans, fair for people that have been stuck in place for the last 10 years making the same amount of money. We do not have to have a budget that gives huge tax breaks to people who already have it made and take it out of the hide of the hard- working middle-income people of this country. Vote down this conference report, and we can do better than this.