Dick Gephardt

Mr. GEPHARDT

Mr. GEPHARDT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his hard work and all the others who were involved today.

Mr. GEPHARDT

Mr. GEPHARDT. Mr. Speaker, it should come as no surprise that I oppose this budget. I think that when we take one bad budget and reconcile it with another bad budget, we wind up with a bad budget. The Republicans say that this bill is about balancing the budget for our children and our grandchildren, but the question we have to ask today and in the days ahead is not whether we have balanced the budget in 5 or 6 or 8 years. The question is whether we have the right balanced priorities in the way that we have balanced the budget: Is it fair? Is it just/ Does it create a sense of equity and justice in our country, so that the people who live with the consequences of the budget will accept our decision? In my view, this budget is not that. It asks too much, in my view, of people in the middle class and people trying to get into the middle class, the people that are really struggling in this country to get ahead, people who have almost given up on the American dream. It does too much to give privileges and breaks to people, frankly, who have done well, and in most cases are not even asking, are not even asking today to be advantaged. I know my friends on this side will disagree, but in our view and lots of people's views, these cuts are deeply damaging to the health care system in this country, but more importantly, damaging to people. We believe that if the cuts go through as they are in the budget now in Medicaid and Medicare, that one-fourth of the hospitals in this country will close. They will close in the wrong places, the places we can least afford to have them close. Almost all of the hospital associations in the country have today said these cuts are too deep. We think the increase in the premiums and the other changes in Medicare are unfair to senior citizens. We can say a lot of seniors have a lot of money, but a lot of them do not. Millions of widows live on their Social Security alone. I met woman in Michigan who told us at one of the events there that she lives on $9,000 a year she gets from her Social Security, and that a doubling of her premium would devastate her monthly situation. We have to think about that person. There are flesh-and-blood human beings at the other end of this budget. I have a family in my district whose son, in repairing the roof at age 15, fell off the roof, broke his neck. Now he lives in a wheelchair. He has to be fed by his parents. They both work. They did not have medical insurance. They came to our office so they could get him onto Medicaid, so he could be put for long periods of time in a nursing home, so he could be taken care of. If the program was block granted and we put this choice in front of State legislatures and cut it by a third, do we take care of the seniors? Do we take care of the disabled? Do we take care of the children? It is an impossible choice, and one that we should not be putting on the States. School lunches. I know it has been changed and hopefully made better. I sat with a woman in Ohio and she told me how she has had three children on school lunches while she could go back to school. She said, ``I am about now to go back to work.'' She said, ``When I get that job, because I could go to school and I had the school lunch program to help me, now I am going to be able to get my kids off of school lunch and be able to have it for somebody else.'' So I guess when we say we are balancing this for our children and our grandchildren, we have to ask an additional question: Are we balancing this budget in a way that is good for our children and our grandchildren? When it comes to taxes, as I have said here on the floor before, this budget takes my breath away. How in the name of common sense and decency can we say to someone who is earning $25,000 a year, who is struggling to get off of welfare and into the work force, that their taxes will go up by, about, we think $300 a year on average, while we are giving a $15,000 tax break to somebody who is earning $300,000 or $500,000 a year? It is unfair. In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, this budget is unbalanced in its priorities. It is unfair to the people in the middle class and people trying to get into the middle class. Ultimately the economic estimates that are on, and we have had this raging debate the last few days about 7 years and the economic estimates, but in truth we all know this is a 1-year budget. The estimates of what will happen in 7 years depends upon the fairness and the equity and the decency of what we do in this budget. The President will veto this budget. Then we must come back. After that veto, the real work must begin. Then we must sit down together, as Americans who are all interested in the future of this country. We must work overtime, and as hard as humanly possible, to come up with an agreement. This Government runs by agreement and by consensus, not by dictation. We must come to an agreement. I hope and pray that it will be a budget that does not overly damage important programs like Medicare and Medicaid, does not damage the education of our children through too severely cutting student loans and school lunches, and finally, that will be fair to the middle class more than it is fair to the people who have it made at the top. If at the end of that we can say we have done that, then, truly, we will leave balanced this budget for our children and our grandchildren. Vote no on this budget today.

Mr. GEPHARDT

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

Mr. GEPHARDT. I would say to the gentleman, since we do not have our applause meter out here, we cannot decipher that.

Mr. GEPHARDT. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Arizona [Mr. Salmon].

Mr. GEPHARDT. I would like to ask the gentleman if he has a good estimate on when Members might expect to be able to leave here on Saturday afternoon or evening.

Mr. GEPHARDT. Could the gentleman further inform us what might be on the schedule for Saturday and what time Members might be expected to be here on Monday?

Mr. GEPHARDT. Mr. Speaker, I ask for this time to inquire about the schedule for today and the rest of the week.

Mr. GEPHARDT. And finally, could the gentleman answer about what would be the estimated time of the first vote on Saturday?

Mr. GEPHARDT. I yield to the distinguished majority leader and ask about the schedule for the rest of the day and the week.

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

Mr. GEPHARDT. One more point or question. With respect, I would just urge the distinguished majority leader to perhaps look at the idea of coming in Saturday a littler earlier so that Members would have a chance, if they were going to go back to their districts on Saturday night, to be able to accomplish that.

Mr. GEPHARDT. Let me say to the distinguished majority leader that I would hope that it might be possible, and I know the President made statements today, and the Speaker and the Senate majority leader, about trying to figure our way through this business of a continuing appropriation. If something could be arrived at on Saturday, I assume that if that can be accomplished for a period of time that would get us past Thanksgiving, that we might be able to avoid a session on Monday and Tuesday. I know that is a very tough thing to get done and will take some time. But if that could be done, does the gentleman think we might be able to avoid Monday and Tuesday?

Mr. GEPHARDT. On Monday, what time would the gentleman think we might come in?

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

Mr. GEPHARDT

Mr. GEPHARDT. Mr. Speaker, I urge Members to vote against this bill. We are here tonight because we have not gotten our work done. We are on a continuing resolution because the appropriation bills have not been done on time. I respect greatly the work that has gone into this budget. I respect the legitimate intentions of the Members in the majority that have worked on this. But we have expended a tremendous amount of energy in the last days simply trying to extend the government, extend the debt so that we could have the time to do either the presentation of bills to the President so that we could bring this to a successful conclusion or to get the veto from the President, which is certain to come, so that we could get to the negotiations, if that is what is to happen next, so that we again can bring this to a successful conclusion. We are expending energy needlessly on a continuing resolution tonight that includes admonitions about the budget in a bill that is not the budget. We know that there are many Members in the body, Democrats and Republicans, that want to reach a balanced budget in 7 years. This bill does not do it. The bill tomorrow or Friday is the bill that does that. And we cannot quite seem to get to the main act. Now, let me say to my friends, if this is to be successful at the end of the day, at some point there has to be a willingness in the majority to say that there have to be 100 minority Members who are part of voting for this budget so the President will ultimately sign it. For the good of the country, I would hope that we could get to that point. But many on the majority side have said over and over again, well, the only way this works, the only way we will be for it is if there are 218 Republican votes for the bill. And in fact, some have said we will never be for a budget that gets as much as 100 Democratic votes. If that is the ultimate outcome, I think then we are bound to argue these issues into the campaign. I am not unwilling to do that. In fact, I have come to believe that these issues are of such importance over such a long period of time that the American people should be dealt into these decisions, if the decisions are simply yours alone. So at some point there has got to be a coming together. Let me finally say this: I understand the Speaker said today, reported in a news article, and sometimes those news articles are wrong and I understand that, but he said that the 7-year number was intuition. I respect his intuition. I respect anybody's intuition. But I am here to tell my colleagues that this issue of 7 years is a clash of values. A budget is not just about 7 years. A budget is about a lot of different decisions. I am here to tell my colleagues tonight, like a lot of people among the American people, I am not for balancing the budget in 5 or 6 or 7 or even 8 years, if it means decimating and ruining the Medicare program that the people of this country have come to depend upon. I am not for balancing the budget in 6 or 7 or 8 years if it means that the young people in my district and in your district cannot get a student loan when they need a student loan to get their education. I can tell my colleagues for sure that I am not for a balanced budget if it means that we are going to cut Medicare and Medicaid and cut seniors, if we are using the majority of that money to pay for a tax break for the wealthiest people in this country. So I say to my friends on the Democratic side tonight, vote against this bill. Let us not put bookends on this decision that says that it has got to be my way or the highway. Let us decide in a rational way, either through the presentation of bills or through an honest negotiation between the parties for a good, sensible, logical, humane balanced budget for this country, even if it takes 8 years or 9 years. Let us not lock our hands tonight and say there is only one way to do this. There has got to be a number of ways to do it. Let us work together to get it done sensibly.

Mr. GEPHARDT

Mr. GEPHARDT. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will continue to yield, to reiterate again, I am sure the gentleman said it, but I want to make sure others heard it, the gentleman said there was a likelihood that we would be in session on Saturday and Sunday of this weekend, is that not correct?

Mr. GEPHARDT. I thank the gentleman.

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

Mr. GEPHARDT. Mr. Speaker, I would ask the gentleman if he expects the reconciliation conference to be voted on in the House on Friday.

Mr. GEPHARDT

Mr. GEPHARDT. Mr. Speaker, I want to rise to speak tonight about the shutdown of the Government and what it means in human terms to thousands and thousands of people around the country and to say to Members that this is a very serious action that we [[Page H 12321]] really do have to remedy in the very near future because lots and lots of people are being hurt, and, as each hour and day passes, more, and more, and more people will be hurt and damaged by the failure of this Congress to come forward with a continuing resolution. Just on day 1, 28,000 of America's seniors and workers have been unable to apply for Social Security or disability benefits. The Social Security offices are not open because of the furlough that happened today, and that simply means that people who have reached the age of 62 or 65 and wanted to apply today for these benefits were not able to do that. Mr. Speaker, I yield to my friend, the gentlewoman from Florida [Mrs. Thurman].

Mr. GEPHARDT. I thank the gentlewoman again. What I want to say to the Members tonight, Mr. Speaker, and I do not have enough time left to go through more stories, but what I hope that we can do in the days ahead is two things: One, tomorrow I will be circulating among Members two pieces of legislation and asking for their cosponsorship. One will be a 24-hour continuing resolution, and the other will be a 48-hour continuing resolution. I hope to get as many Members as cosponsors as we can possibly get. Second, Mr. Speaker, I hope to bring to the floor continuing facts and information on what is happening out in the country as a result of our failure to move forward with this continuing resolution. This is a manufactured crisis. This does not need to happen. I understand we have a dispute about the budget, I understand that both sides feel strongly about their views. I will not take the time tonight to go through the views that are on this side. But I must report that we do not need to manufacture a crisis in order to bring about a solution to that problem. No one needs leverage in this discussion. The Republican side has all the leverage they need. They have a majority in the Congress. They can pass the legislation that they want to pass. The President has a veto. The President can veto bills or sign bills. Then we have to bring bills back and send them downtown to try to get them signed. But to make innocent Americans the victims of our inability to solve this disagreement is simply morally wrong. We should not be doing it, there is no excuse for it, there is no reason that in the days ahead we should not be passing at least a 24-hour continuing resolution. If people are then unhappy about the pace of the talks and the negotiations, they can then vote against the next 24-hour continuing resolution, but we ought to give the American people what they have paid for, which is the services that these kinds of veteran's offices and Social Security offices are there to bring. We will be trying, through the endorsement of these two pieces of legislation, we will try to get on the floor and ask unanimous consent three or four times a day to bring up these pieces of legislation for 24 hours or 48 hours of continuing resolution. We must continue to say to people what is happening, and we must continue to try to bring the situation, which is unexplainable and intolerable and totally morally wrong, to the attention of the American people, so that if people feel strongly about this, they will contact their representatives, we will get the votes to pass one of these bills, and we will get these offices reopened which are so important to the American people.

Mr. GEPHARDT. I thank the gentlewoman for that story and contribution. I am sure that as the days roll on here, we are going to have hundreds and hundreds of stories of individuals who have had real problems in their life because of our inability to continue these needed government services. Two hundred thousand of America's seniors today have tried to get the 1-800 help line for Social Security and have gotten no answer; 7,649 of America's veterans have been unable to file compensation pension and education benefit claims or adjustments.

Mr. GEPHARDT

Mr. GEPHARDT. Mr. Speaker, Members of the House, I urge Members to vote against this motion. I strongly believe that we should vote today on whether or not we are going to override this veto so that we can clear the decks [[Page H 12241]] to begin talking about what kind of a continuing appropriation we can put in place. The issue is today, and the issue is what happens to real people, because as we stand here locked in a disagreement over the budget, which is a disagreement we ultimately have to deal with, in the meantime, real Americans are being affected negatively by our inability to even pass a continuing resolution to keep the Government operating. Now, a lot of people have said well, the essential services will be taken care of, and I guess yes, the airplanes will still be able to fly, because we are going to have air controllers out there working today, and the aircraft carriers will be in the water because they are essential. I assume the meat inspectors will be on the job so that we do not get some bad hamburger or chicken. However, you need to understand that on a typical day like today, 20,000 Americans apply for Social Security, retirement and survivors' benefits, or disability insurance, but because Social Security Administration employees are furloughed, 20,000 Americans every day, including today, will be denied their ability to get these benefits. There is simply not going to be an office open for them to go to. Also on a typical day like today, anywhere between 2,000 and 3,000 veterans apply for veterans' compensation and veterans' pensions, but because the Department of Veterans Affairs' employees are furloughed today, several thousand veterans who have served their country will be greeted by closed doors when they go to get their benefits. Mr. Speaker, again, this is not necessary. This is happening, as the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey] said, because the Speaker wants to use the Government being closed or open as leverage to get the President to agree to something with regard to the budget. It is leverage the Speaker does not need. The President is committed to balancing the budget. There is an argument over the details of how that is done and how fast it is done and what the elements of it are, but he is agreeing with the Speaker that we ought to try to balance the budget, and he is willing to do that. But we are hurting innocent American taxpayers who have paid their taxes and fought our wars and now simply want to be treated as they were promised to be treated. I have asked the ranking member, the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey], to get up today, maybe on a couple of occasions, and offer a resolution that he has already put in that would simply extend the continuing appropriation for 24 hours. I cannot understand how anyone could not want to extend the continuing appropriation for 24 hours. Let us keep the veterans' offices open for 24 more hours, so that we can continue the dialog over the budget. If we have not completed it by tomorrow at this time, let us do another 24 hours. When we had the budget summit in 1990, we did a number of 48-hour continuing appropriations. There is no reason we cannot do that today. I plead with the majority in this Congress, and I plead with the Speaker. Let us use common sense and common decency. Let us do a 24- hour continuing appropriation. The gentleman from Wisconsin will be on his feet today, maybe on a number of occasions, and will be back here every day on a number of occasions to offer, if we are allowed to do it, a 24-hour continuing appropriation. Let us not take this out on the American people. Let us do what is decent and right. Let us do 24-hour continuing appropriations so that the Government can continue and we can continue trying to do what we were sent here to do, which is to balance the budget on sensible terms.

Mr. GEPHARDT

Mr. GEPHARDT. Mr. Speaker, let me first say that a vote for this bill is a vote to bring about default of the Government for the first time in its history. If we take away from the Secretary of the Treasury all of the management opportunities that are now existent in the law, which this bill would do, we simply bring about the greatest possibility that the unthinkable would happen, and that is that we would have a default for the first time in our history. The result of that is catastrophic for the American people. Adjustable rate mortgage interest will go up, over the years, not just for 6 months or a year. It will go up over the years, more than it ordinarily would or should. If you are worried about Social Security, as we all are and should be, the worst thing we could do to Social Security would be to bring about a default on the part of the U.S. Government. They would be unable to make payments. Under the Social Security system, they would be unable to invest the money coming in in interest bearing accounts as a result of what would take place under this bill. Let us talk about the converse. What is being argued is that this bill is needed in order to make sure that the Social Security fund is not disinvested. It is a red herring. It is simply not true. If that were the real intent of the bill, why does the bill not just deal with that issue alone, even though we do not need to deal with that issue? It is because the real agenda is to put leverage on the President to sign the budget that has a big increase in Medicare premiums and a big tax break for the wealthy. That is the real agenda that is going on here. That is really what is happening. That is why this bill is being presented, to gain more leverage on the President. So I urge Members not to be taken in, not to be fooled. The best policy is to not vote for this bill, to not bring about default and make default more certain, to not increase leverage on the President, so that a budget goes through here that hurts Medicare recipients, increases their premium, closes 25 percent of the hospitals in the country, cuts back dramatically on medical education and all the other things bad that will happen to the Medicare system that we have been fighting so hard to try to preserve. This is a bad idea, it is a wrong idea, it is an unneeded idea. Finally, if you want to make sure that Social Security is secure, vote against this legislation and let us get the budget done, so that we will not have to worry about the debt ceiling anymore, and make sure that all of our Social Security recipients will receive their checks on time, as we have promised through the years.