Dick Gephardt

Mr. GEPHARDT

Mr. GEPHARDT. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to urge Republicans and Democrats alike to defeat this rule, and give this Congress an honest and open debate about this Republican budget and its consequences for hardworking American families. The fact is the Republicans want to force this budget through the Congress without adequate debate. This budget was produced in the Committee on the Budget, and a vote was had on it the same day, an unprecedented rush to bring it through the committee before anyone could even know what was in it. If this rule passes, we cannot even consider all of the Democratic alternatives to the Republican budget. The gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Dingell] has an alternative that he wanted to bring. It is not in order. The gentleman from Texas [Mr. Stenholm] and the gentleman from Utah [Mr. Orton] wanted to bring a budget. They were not allowed to do it. They were told they had to do it through me. This is one of the most important changes in the budget we have ever had, and we are in such a rush to get it done before, I guess, anyone can find out really what is in it, that we are not having an open, small d, democratic process, which this country deserves. The people deserve to know what is in this budget. We need to consider every alternative, because if the American people are given a moment to consider it, they will find the Republican budget is so much more reckless, so much more extreme than any budget that has come before, it really belongs in Guiness' Book of World Records. The largest Medicare cuts in history, slashing seniors' benefits by more than $1,000 a year. And we can talk all day about what is a cut. I will tell you what is a cut. A cut is what a senior citizen has to face. They are going to face higher copays and higher deductibles and higher premiums to buy the health insurance they have under Medicare today. [[Page H5116]] Further than that, a back-door cut in Social Security, in the pension. Republicans took the oath. They made a hollow campaign promise to protect America's retirement program. What did they do? The promise is broken in this budget. There will be an annual cut in the cost of living escalator in Social Security. We heard it was off the table. It is on the table. So I guess we are in a rush to get it done before anybody can find out what happened. Social Security should not be on this budget. It was never expected to be in this budget. It is in this budget. People deserve to know about it before their Representatives have to vote on it. Unprecedented cuts in student loans. The most important investment we will ever make in the future of this country is student loans. But yet we are going to have a cut that will shut millions of young people out of their ability to get an education. Mr. Speaker, these programs are not waste, fraud and abuse. They are the backbone of the American dream. They are counted on by millions of working families. To make it worse, what is all this for? It is for a tax cut that lavishes the most on those who have the most. The million richest Americans walk away with a $20,000 average tax cut, while we are taking $1,000 out of the pockets of senior citizens, or we are adding $5,000 to the cost of a student loan. These are not American values. This is a redistribution from the middle class of this country, and the people who are struggling to get into the middle class, to the people who have it made. We all want to get rich. Everybody should be able to live the American dream, but this is not the way to do it. I urge Members to vote against this rule. Let's have every alternative on the table. Let's have a longer debate than 6 hours over a budget that is going to decimate the middle class of this country to help the richest people in the country. It is wrong, and we need a full debate so the American people can see the wrongness of this decision.

Mr. GEPHARDT

Mr. GEPHARDT. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to urge my colleagues to defeat this bill, to say no to this cynical strategy to force the Medicare trustees to figure out how to pay for tax cuts for the privileged few. Make no mistake about it, that is what the Republicans are trying to do with this bill. They produce a budget that reduces taxes for the wealthiest Americans, giving the richest 1 million Americans a $20,000 tax giveaway each year. To fill that gaping budget hole, they want to carve almost exactly the same amount out of Medicare, taking money away from struggling seniors and their families to line the pockets of those who already have it made. Americans have known for years that Republicans are no friends of Medicare. After all, many Republicans voted against the very creation of the program. Year after year when concerns have been raised about the solvency of the Medicare trust fund, about our ability to preserve Medicare benefits, not just for today's seniors but for future generations, Democrats have acted and Republicans have barely lifted a finger to help. So why can they not just be honest about it? Why can Republicans not just say we want to cut Medicare and we want to give the money to the wealthiest Americans? If that is what they believe, they should have the courage to stand up and be proud of those beliefs. Instead, they want to hide behind the Medicare trustees, to ask a group of overseers to make their deep and dangerous Medicare cuts. But we are talking about Medicare trustees, not tax cut trustees. To ask them to fund the Republican giveaways for the wealthy is to degrade their very purpose, to make them pawns to an extremist agenda. It is wrong and we should not stand for it. Republicans claim to be concerned about the solvency of the trust fund. They say that they want to save Medicare. But if that were true, why would they have refused to help Democrats improve Medicare year after year until they needed a way to pay for tax breaks for the privileged few? And why would they propose tax breaks that are far deeper than any that would be needed to ensure the solvency of the trust fund, following the time-honored Republican maxim, give tax breaks first, then ask questions later. Mr. Speaker, I don't need a commission or a political fig leaf to tell me what these cuts would do to America's working families. In my State of Missouri, seniors would see their benefits slashed by $873 a year by the year 2002. A story on the front page of today's New York Times says there is simply no way to make these cuts, the largest Medicare cuts in history, without, and I quote, real pain. The Times even quotes a Republican health policy expert as saying, and I quote, some of the providers will probably not survive the pressure. In other words, hospitals will close or cut services, not just for seniors but for everybody. Last week's Washington post quotes confidential Republican memos that show very clearly that under their plan Medicare deductibles will go up, premiums will increase, charges the Republicans continue to deny. We need to talk openly and honestly about improving Medicare and making the trust fund solvent but not as a way to pay for tax breaks for the privileged few. Medicare is a trust fund. It is not a slush fund. It is about health care, not stealth agendas. This bill is nothing more than a political ploy and frankly while I do not agree with very much of the Republican agenda, I never expected them to try to hide from their own agenda. Reject this bill. Throw away the fig leaf, and then let's have a real debate about Medicare based on policy, not on tax breaks for the privileged few.

Mr. GEPHARDT

Mr. GEPHARDT. Mr. Speaker, today I am pleased to introduce the President's antiterrorism legislation in the House, to help ensure that America never endures the kind of tragedy which shook Oklahoma City on April 19. What happened in Oklahoma City was an unforgivable act of cold- blooded cowardice. There is no posture or principle which justifies the ruthless killing of innocent children. There is no cause or commitment which excuses such random death and destruction. We must do more than merely convicting those responsible for this horrific act of violence, and bringing them to swift and certain punishment. We must serve warning to all who would use extremist means to advance their extremist ideas: We will use the full force of our laws to find them, to punish them, and to rid our society of their hateful acts. And when those laws aren't enough, we'll write tough new laws to rein in their wanton bloodshed and terrorism. That is why this legislation is so important. It will help our law enforcement agencies root out terrorism more quickly and effectively, to help make the atrocities of Oklahoma City a closed chapter in our Nation's history.

Mr. GEPHARDT

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

Mr. GEPHARDT. I thank the gentleman.

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

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

Mr. GEPHARDT. I would just say to the gentleman that we had been hoping for more like 14 hours of general debate. This is a very important document for the future of the country, and people deserve to know exactly what the alternatives are and how they would work and allow for adequate debate, so I urge the Committee on Rules to take that under consideration. I know these hatchery bills are probably important somewhere, but probably more important and especially to a bass fisherman of such renown as the majority leader, but maybe we could get to the budget a little faster and have more time to use.

Mr. GEPHARDT. Second, I would like to ask if we could reserve the time between say 2 p.m. and 5 p.m. on Monday for special orders, instead of recessing.

Mr. GEPHARDT. Finally, in looking at the schedule, it appears that we are talking about a 4-hour period for debate on the budget. And I must say to the distinguished majority leader that there is a lot of desire I am sure on both sides of the aisle to adequately debate this very important budget, and the changes that are being proposed by many Members in the budget, and I would like to ask if we could perhaps see more time for debate in this period that you have set out.

Mr. GEPHARDT. I would like to ask the distinguished majority leader a couple of questions. First, do you expect votes on Monday night on clean water amendments?

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, I rise this afternoon to speak about the Republican budget and its effect on Medicare and Social Security. The assertion is trying to be made on the Republican side that this is not a cut. Well, I beg to differ. To the senior citizens of this country who have paid all their lives into this trust fund, it is a cut. A cut is a reduction in services, an increase in premiums, an increase in copays and deductibles. So to the senior citizen out there, or to their family, you can call it anything you want to call it; it is a reduction in services. It is less than they expected to be able to get out of this very, very important program in their lives, and let us remember who we are affecting here. We are not just affecting the recipient of the program for the person that is enrolled in Medicare. We are affecting their entire family. The 30-, and 40-, and 50-year-old sons and daughters of these recipients of Social Security will have to make up the money if their parent cannot come up with it for the copay, or the deductible or the increased premium, and remember that this increased premium will come out of their Social Security check. It is automatically deducted, so it is in effect a decrease in their Social Security monthly payment. Mr. Speaker, we have got lots and lots of senior citizens around the country who live on their Social Security. It is the only thing they have to look forward to every month to pay their rent, to pay their heating bill, to pay for their food, and so that amount will be reduced. Let us also remember this budget calls for a reduction in the Social Security benefit. It calls for an arbitrary reduction in the cost of living escalator by over a half a percent a year beginning in 1999. By the year 2002 it means a $240 cut in their Social Security benefit. So, because of the Medicare cut which comes to about $1,000 a person a year immediately, the $240 cut in their Social Security benefit by the year 2002, these folks who are living on Social Security and their families who help support them are going to be out about $1,240 a year that they now count on in order to get by. Now let us remember that these programs are supported by taxes. There is no deficit in the Medicare trust fund. There is no deficit in the Social Security trust fund. There is more money coming into those trust funds today than is spent, and we believe that it is wrong to make up for problems somewhere else in the budget out of those trust funds, yet that is precisely what the Republican budget does. They said proudly for days, ``We're not going to touch Social Security; it's off the table.'' Well, it is on the table again in a big way, $1,240 per person per year it is on the table, and that is not what was said. What was said before the budget came out was Social Security is off the table, it is not going to be cut. And now we even see why it is being cut. It is being cut for a tax break. The Medicare cut almost equals the amount that is going out to give a tax break, a tax windfall, for the wealthiest people in the country. So now we see the real value that is being expressed. A budget is an expression of values in its most important meaning. The value that the Republican Party is expressing in this budget is that it is fine to take dollars, $1,240 a year ultimately, from the middle-income families of this country and transfer it to people making $200, and $300, and $400 and $500,000 a year so they can get a $20,000-a-year tax break. We are going to take $1,240 a year from middle-income families and families trying to stay in the middle class. Is that our sense of values? Is that what we want to have happen in this country? I do not think so. I think what we want is to help middle-income families stay in the middle class, and that is what Social Security and Medicare have primarily been about. This is not the right approach, this is not what we ought to be doing, and if you say the Social Security funds may not be stable and solvent 5 and 10 years from now, I say, ``Fine, let's look at that. Let's look at the whole health care system as we do it, and let's not start this discussion by giving a $20,000-a-year tax break to families earning $250,000 a year. Let's put that off to the side. Let's save that one for later when we finally got enough money in the budget to consider things like that. But for right now let's talk about the real problems of our country: education, Medicare, Social Security, keeping those programs there for the middle-income people who paid their taxes their entire life. Let's not take it from them. Let's help strengthen those programs.'' So I hope, as we go into this most important budget, this Republican budget represents the greatest change in U.S. budgets in many, many years. Let us have a full debate in this Congress about what is actually happening here. This budget will have direct significance, dramatic consequences, in the lives of average working American families. They deserve to know what this budget will do to them, and before we vote on it and cast votes for it or against it, let us let the people know what is in it. Let us let them participate in the debate. Then we can make a judgment. And I believe if that is done, we will make the right judgment, and the right judgment is not to invade Medicare and Social Security to give tax breaks to the people who have done the best in our country. That will not be our judgment, and I urge that, after this debate, we will make a better judgment, and we will make sure that Social Security and Medicare are not invaded, and that these cuts are not made to the middle-income people of this country simply to give a tax break to the people who have it made.

Mr. GEPHARDT

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

Mr. GEPHARDT. I know the gentleman is doing everything that he can to bring this to a successful and swift conclusion. Just please know that there is a lot of, unhappiness maybe is too strong of a word, but deep concern and unhappiness, I am sure, on both sides of the aisle about the failure to get out. The contract is over. It is time for family friendly. Let us do everything we can to make that happen.

Mr. GEPHARDT. Perhaps if I could reclaim my time and bring this to a conclusion, because we are now wasting time.

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

Mr. GEPHARDT. I thank the gentleman. I realize it is difficult to make everything come out on time, but I really believe that there was a great amount of anticipation and excitement among all Members when we talked about making the schedule more family friendly. I admit it is hard to do. I have been in your position, and I know how difficult it is. But in that this bill is not essential, we are not on a strict time line, I really believe it would be helpful if Members could go home at a decent hour, come back tomorrow, get out at 1 p.m., come back on Tuesday and get our work done.

Mr. GEPHARDT. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, I rise for the purpose of inquiring from the chairman of the committee or the distinguished majority leader if we could know what the schedule is for the remainder of today and tomorrow. I rise because we were told during the period when the contract was on that when the contract was finished, that the schedule would be a little more family friendly and that we could get people home at a reasonable hour. This is the second night that we are going to be here late. I realize this is important legislation but as I look at the schedule for next week, there are days when there is not a lot of business that we could perhaps finish this bill. I inquire of the distinguished majority leader if we could perhaps leave fairly soon so that Members could see their families and come back tomorrow and try to finish.

Mr. GEPHARDT. I thank the gentleman.

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

Mr. GEPHARDT. I understand.

Mr. GEPHARDT

Mr. GEPHARDT. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to urge my colleagues to defeat this bill, to let all of America know that when it comes to the water that we all drink every day, the water we use to cook, and to feed to our children, there can be no compromise, and we can allow no special interest agenda. The fact is this so-called clean water bill is anything but clean. It rolls back decades of environmental controls designed with one purpose in mind: to make sure that the water that comes out of our faucets, the water that we swim in and bathe in, is clean and safe. That is not a Democratic or a Republican goal. Basic health and safety, freedom from pollution and contamination, is something that knows no bound of party or politics. However, in my view, this bill serves an interest that is outside the political process. It serves the interests of industrial polluters looking to save a few pennies, even if that means contaminated water and disease for people. If Members ask me, that is not what the American voter voted for last November: polluted drinking water, contaminated soil in which to grow good food, filthy water in which to swim. Some will try to argue that there is no national role in clean water, that States should set their own standards. However, clean water is a national issue. My town of St. Louis, MO, gets all of its drinking water from the Mississippi River, which originates in other States. If those States allow pollution, we in St. Louis drink the consequences. At the same time, I know that this bill will cost my State millions of dollars in lost sewage treatment funds, money that we desperately need to keep our water clean. Mr. Chairman, if we vote for this bill, we will have more than dirty water. We will have an unclean conscience. This is a bill of special interests, by the special interests, for the special interests. In my opinion, that is reason enough to vote a resounding no. Then with our drinking water saved from the special interest assault, we can roll up our sleeves and go back to work for the people for a change. I urge Members, in the interests of having safe drinking water in our towns and villages all across this country, to defeat this bill. We can do better.

Mr. GEPHARDT

Mr. GEPHARDT. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the memory of a man who was a true American--a man who truly believed in and lived the ideals of this country--his name was Paul Maruyama. He came to the United States from Japan in 1934 to complete his education. Shortly after the start of World War II he and his wife Mary were given 48 hours to sell their possessions and report for internment in a camp--they were both American citizens. During relocation after the war, Paul and his family settled in St. Louis. Paul spent the rest of his life in St. Louis working to make our community a better place to live. He became an importer of Japanese products and a consultant for Japanese and American companies who desired to do business in each other's country. He was given the title of ``Goodwill Ambassador'' for his work in promoting friendship and mutual understanding between Japan and his adopted country. The list of his civic accomplishments is too long to enumerate but include: the founding of the Japan-American Society of St. Louis, serving is the honorary Consul-General of Japan, establishing the St. Louis Chapter of the Japanese-American Citizens League, conducting citizenship classes for Japanese who wanted to become citizens, and the establishment of the Sister Cities Program between Suwa City, Japan and St. Louis. Paul's legacy is faith--faith in the values and ideals of this country. He never let his mistreatment during the war affect his attitude. He always believed this was the greatest nation in the world and loved and supported his adopted country every day. The St. Louis community has lost a good friend in Paul Maruyama--the United States of America has lost a true patriot.

Mr. GEPHARDT

Mr. GEPHARDT. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to urge my colleagues to support this resolution, to express the profound sadness and anger of this House at the bombing which shook Oklahoma City on April 19. Mr. Speaker, none of us in this Chamber can fully comprehend the pain and sorrow of those who lost friends, loved ones, and even precious young babies at the hands of the terrorists. To them, our words mean little, if anything. But hopefully our deeds will not, and we must pledge every measure of support and justice of which we are capable. But the fact is for all that was taken from us in Oklahoma City 13 days ago, there were many things that can never be taken away, the courage of those who risked their lives to come to the aid of the victims, the fierce determination of the Government workers and rescuers who showed us by their service that there is something more meaningful in all of this than the poison of the violence and the destruction. Mr. Speaker, the attack on Oklahoma City may have been un-American, but the outpouring of support and help and prayer was uniquely American. It showed a strength of spirit that cannot be dulled by any injustice or any evil intent. But make no mistake, what happened in Oklahoma was an unforgivable act of cold-blooded cowardice. There is no posture or principle which justifies the ruthless killing of innocent people and innocent children. There is no cause or commitment which excuses random death and destruction. This is why we have to do more than just convict those responsible for this act of violence and bringing them to swift and certain severe punishment. We must serve warning to all who would use extremist means to advance their extremist thoughts and ideas: We will use the full force of our laws to find them, to punish them and rid our society of their hateful acts, and when those laws are not enough, we will write tough new laws to rein in their wanton bloodshed and terrorism. So I urge all of our Members to stand together to voice our outrage at this hateful action, and then with the U.S. Congress truly united in spirit, with our hands joined and our commitment clear, we can get down to the real business at hand, providing the relief that the victims of Oklahoma City deserve, and then passing the laws that will help make such atrocities a closed chapter in our Nation's history. As the father of three children, I cannot imagine, I cannot imagine the sorrow of the parents and the relatives of those children. This has to be the worst act of violence in the history of our country. It must not stand. We must find the good in this evil act, and I will work tirelessly with all of our Members on both sides of the aisle to make good of this great evil.