[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 1 (Wednesday, January 4, 1995)]
[House]
[Pages H3-H8]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
ELECTION OF SPEAKER
The Clerk. The next order of business is the election of the Speaker
of the House of Representatives for the 104th Congress.
Nominations are now in order.
The Clerk recognizes the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Boehner].
Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Clerk, as chairman of the Republican Conference, I
am honored and privileged to welcome my colleagues and the American
people to this historic day. We have been sent here--to the People's
House--to write, together, a new chapter in our blessed Nation's
history. There is great anticipation, excitement, and expectation in
America about what this new chapter will say. To America I say, we
shall write the chapter as you dictate it to us. This is your House and
your will will be reflected in our actions.
As the first sentence of this new chapter, I am directed by the
unanimous vote of the Republican Conference to present the name of the
Honorable Newt Gingrich, a Representative-elect from the State of
Georgia, for election to the Office of the Speaker of the House of
Representatives for the 104th Congress.
The Clerk. The Clerk now recognizes the gentleman from California
[Mr. Fazio].
Mr. FAZIO. Mr. Clerk, as chairman of the Democratic Caucus, I am
directed by the unanimous vote of that caucus to present for election
to the Office of the Speaker of the House of Representatives for the
104th Congress the name of the Honorable Richard A. Gephardt, a
Representative-elect from the State of Missouri. I am proud to so make
that nomination.
{time} 1240
The Clerk. The Honorable Newt Gingrich, a Representative-elect from
the State of Georgia, and the Honorable Richard A. Gephardt, a
Representative-elect from the State of Missouri, have been placed in
nomination.
Are there any further nominations?
There being no further nominations, the Clerk will appoint tellers.
The Chair appoints the gentleman from California [Mr. Thomas], the
gentleman from California [Mr. Fazio], the gentlewoman from New Jersey
[Mrs. Roukema], and the gentlewoman from Colorado [Mrs. Schroeder].
The tellers will come forward and take their seats at the desk in the
front of the Speaker's rostrum.
The roll will now be called, and those responding to their names will
indicate by surname the nominee of their choice.
The reading clerk will now call the roll.
The tellers having taken their places, the House proceeded to vote
for the Speaker.
The following is the result of the vote:
[Roll No. 2]
GINGRICH--228
Allard
Archer
Armey
Bachus
Baker (CA)
Baker (LA)
Ballenger
Barr
Barrett (NE)
Bartlett
Barton
Bass
Bateman
Bereuter
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bliley
Blute
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bono
Brownback
Bryant (TN)
Bunn
Bunning
Burr
Burton
Buyer
Callahan
Calvert
Camp
Canady
Castle
Chabot
Chambliss
Chenoweth
Christensen
Chrysler
Clinger
Coble
Coburn
Collins (GA)
Combest
Cooley
Cox
Crane
Crapo
Cremeans
Cubin
Cunningham
Davis
DeLay
Diaz-Balart
Dickey
Doolittle
Dornan
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Ehlers
Ehrlich
Emerson
English
Ensign
Everett
Ewing
Fawell
Fields (TX)
Flanagan
Foley
Forbes
Fowler
Fox
Franks (CT)
Franks (NJ)
Frelinghuysen
Frisa
Funderburk
Gallegly
Ganske
Gekas
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gilman
Goodlatte
Goodling
Goss
Graham
Greenwood
Gunderson
Gutknecht
Hancock
Hansen
Hastert
Hastings (WA)
Hayworth
Hefley
Heineman
Herger
Hilleary
Hobson
Hoekstra
Hoke
Horn
Hostettler
Houghton
Hunter
Hutchinson
Hyde
Inglis
Istook
Johnson (CT)
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Kasich
Kelly
Kim
King
Kingston
Klug
Knollenberg
Kolbe
LaHood
Largent
Latham
LaTourette
Lazio
Leach
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Lightfoot
Linder
Livingston
LoBiondo
Longley
Lucas
Manzullo
Martini
McCollum
McCrery
McDade
McHugh
McInnis
McIntosh
McKeon
Metcalf
Meyers
Mica
Miller (FL)
Molinari
Moorhead
Morella
Myers
Myrick
Nethercutt
Neumann
Ney
Norwood
Nussle
Oxley
Packard
Paxon
Petri
Pombo
Porter
Portman
Pryce
Quillen
Quinn
Radanovich
Ramstad
Regula
Riggs
Roberts
Rogers
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Roth
Roukema
Royce
Salmon
Sanford
Saxton
Scarborough
Schaefer
Schiff
Seastrand
Sensenbrenner
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Shuster
Skeen
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Solomon
Souder
Spence
Stearns
Stockman
Stump
Talent
Tate
Taylor (NC)
Thomas
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Torkildsen
Upton
Vucanovich
Waldholtz
Walker
Walsh
Wamp
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
White
Whitfield
[[Page H4]] Wicker
Wolf
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
Zeliff
Zimmer
GEPHARDT--202
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Andrews
Baesler
Baldacci
Barcia
Barrett (WI)
Becerra
Beilenson
Bentsen
Berman
Bevill
Bishop
Bonior
Borski
Boucher
Brewster
Browder
Brown (CA)
Brown (FL)
Brown (OH)
Bryant (TX)
Cardin
Chapman
Clay
Clayton
Clement
Clyburn
Coleman
Collins (IL)
Collins (MI)
Condit
Conyers
Costello
Coyne
Cramer
Danner
de la Garza
Deal
DeFazio
DeLauro
Dellums
Deutsch
Dicks
Dingell
Dixon
Doggett
Dooley
Doyle
Durbin
Edwards
Engel
Eshoo
Evans
Farr
Fattah
Fazio
Fields (LA)
Filner
Flake
Foglietta
Ford
Frank (MA)
Frost
Furse
Gejdenson
Geren
Gibbons
Gonzalez
Gordon
Green
Gutierrez
Hall (OH)
Hall (TX)
Hamilton
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Hayes
Hefner
Hilliard
Hinchey
Holden
Hoyer
Jackson-Lee
Jacobs
Jefferson
Johnson (SD)
Johnson, E. B.
Johnston
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy (MA)
Kennedy (RI)
Kennelly
Kildee
Kleczka
Klink
LaFalce
Lambert-Lincoln
Lantos
Laughlin
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Lofgren
Lowey
Luther
Maloney
Manton
Markey
Martinez
Mascara
Matsui
McCarthy
McDermott
McHale
McKinney
McNulty
Meehan
Meek
Menendez
Mfume
Miller (CA)
Mineta
Minge
Mink
Moakley
Mollohan
Montgomery
Moran
Murtha
Nadler
Neal
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Orton
Owens
Pallone
Pastor
Payne (NJ)
Payne (VA)
Pelosi
Peterson (FL)
Peterson (MN)
Pickett
Pomeroy
Poshard
Rahall
Rangel
Reed
Reynolds
Richardson
Rivers
Roemer
Rose
Roybal-Allard
Rush
Sabo
Sanders
Sawyer
Schroeder
Schumer
Scott
Serrano
Sisisky
Skaggs
Skelton
Slaughter
Spratt
Stark
Stenholm
Stokes
Studds
Stupak
Tanner
Tauzin
Tejeda
Thompson
Thornton
Thurman
Torres
Torricelli
Towns
Traficant
Tucker
Velazquez
Vento
Visclosky
Volkmer
Ward
Waters
Watt (NC)
Waxman
Williams
Wilson
Wise
Woolsey
Wyden
Wynn
Yates
ANSWERED ``PRESENT''--4
Gephardt
Gingrich
Parker
Taylor (MS)
{time} 1310
The Clerk. If there are any Representatives-elect who did not answer
the rollcall, they may come to the well and vote at this time.
The tellers agree in their tallies that the total number of votes
cast is 434, of which the Honorable Newt Gingrich of the State of
Georgia has received 228 and the honorable Richard A. Gephardt of the
State of Missouri has received 202, with 4 voting ``present.''
Therefore, the Honorable Newt Gingrich of the State of Georgia is
duly elected Speaker of the House of Representatives for the 104th
Congress, having received a majority of the votes cast.
The Clerk would request visitors on the floor, most respectfully,
including former members, to relinquish seats on the floor to Members-
elect, prior to the presentation of the Speaker-elect.
{time} 1320
The Clerk appoints the following committee to escort the Speaker-
elect to the chair: The gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Gephardt], the
gentleman from Texas [Mr. Armey], the gentleman from Texas [Mr. DeLay],
the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Bonior], the gentleman from Ohio [Mr.
Boehner], the gentleman from California [Mr. Fazio], the gentleman from
Georgia [Mr. Collins], the gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Lewis], the
gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Bishop], the gentleman from Georgia [Mr.
Deal], the gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Kingston], the gentleman from
Georgia [Mr. Linder], the gentlewoman from Georgia [Ms. McKinney], the
gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Barr], the gentleman from Georgia [Mr.
Chambliss], and the gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Norwood].
The committee will retire from the Chamber to escort the Speaker-
elect to the chair.
The Doorkeeper announced the Speaker-elect of the House of
Representatives of the 104th Congress, who was escorted to the chair by
the committee of escort.
Mr. GEPHARDT. Mr. Speaker, let me say to the ladies and gentleman of
the House that I first want to thank my Democratic colleagues for their
support and their confidence. I noted we were a little short, but I
appreciate your friendship and your support.
As you might imagine, this is not a moment that I had been waiting
for. When you carry the mantle of progress, there is precious little
glory in defeat. But sometimes we spend so much time lionizing the
winners and labeling the losers, we lose sight of the victory we all
share in this crown jewel of democracy.
You see, Mr. Speaker, this is a day to celebrate a power that belongs
not to any political party, but to the people, no matter the margin, no
matter the majority. All across the world, from Bosnia to Chechnya to
South Africa, people lay down their lives for the kind of voice we take
for granted. Too often the transfer of power is an act of pain and
carnage, not one as we see today of peace and decency.
{time} 1330
But here in the House of Representatives, for 219 years, longer than
any democracy in the world, we heed the people's voice with peace and
civility and respect. Each and every day, on this very floor, we echo
the hopes and dreams of our people, their fears and their failures,
their abiding belief in a better America.
We may not all agree with today's changing of the guard. We may not
all like it, but we enact the people's will with dignity and honor and
pride. In that endeavor, Mr. Speaker, there can be no losers, and there
can be no defeat.
Of course, in the 104th Congress there will be conflict and
compromise. Agreements will not always be easy; agreements sometimes
not even possible. However, while we may not agree on matters of party
and principle, we all abide with the will of the people. That is reason
enough to place our good faith and our best hopes in your able hands.
I speak from the bottom of my heart when I say that I wish you the
best in these coming 2 years, for when this gavel passes into your
hands, so do the futures and fortunes of millions of Americans. To make
real progress, to improve real people's lives, we both have to rise
above partisanship. We have to work together were we can and where we
must.
It is a profound responsibility, one which knows no bounds in party
or politics. It is the responsibility not merely for those who voted
for you, not merely for those who cast their fate on your side of the
aisle, but also for those who did not.
These are the responsibilities I pass, along with the gavel I hold,
will hold in my hand, but there are some burdens that the Democratic
Party will never cease to bear. As Democrats, we came to Congress to
fight for America's hard-working middle-income families, the families
who are working, often for longer hours, for less pay, for fewer
benefits in jobs they are not sure they can keep.
We, together, must redeem their faith that if they work hard and they
play by the rules they can build a better life for their children. Mr.
Speaker, I want this entire House to speak for those families. The
Democratic Party will. That mantle we will never lay to rest.
So with partnership but with purpose, I pass this great gavel of our
Government. With resignation, but
with resolve, I hereby end 40 years of Democratic rule of this House;
with faith and with friendship and the deepest respect. You are now my
Speaker, and let the great debate begin.
I now have the high honor and distinct privilege to present to the
House of Representatives our new Speaker, the gentleman from Georgia,
Newt Gingrich.
Mr. GINGRICH. Let me say first of all that I am deeply grateful to my
good friend, Dick Gephardt. When my side maybe overreacted to your
statement about ending 40 years of Democratic rule, I could not help
but look over at Bob Michel, who has often been up here and who knows
that everything Dick said was true. This is difficult and painful to
lose, and on my side of the aisle, we have for 20 elections been on the
losing side. Yet there is something
[[Page H5]] so wonderful about the process by which a free people
decides things.
In my own case, I lost two elections, and with the good help of my
friend Vic Fazio came close to losing two others. I am sorry, guys, it
just did not quite work out. Yet I can tell you that every time when
the polls closed and I waited for the votes to come in, I felt good,
because win or lose, we have been part of this process.
In a little while, I am going to ask the dean of the House, John
Dingell, to swear me in, to insist on the bipartisan nature of the way
in which we together work in this House. John's father was one of the
great stalwarts of the New Deal, a man who, as an FDR Democrat, created
modern America. I think that John and his father represent a tradition
that we all have to recognize and respect, and recognize that the
America we are now going to try to lead grew from that tradition and is
part of that great heritage.
I also want to take just a moment to thank Speaker Foley, who was
extraordinarily generous, both in his public utterances and in
everything that he and Mrs. Foley did to help Marianne and me, and to
help our staff make the transition. I think that he worked very hard to
reestablish the dignity of the House. We can all be proud of the
reputation that he takes and of the spirit with which he led the
speakership. Our best wishes go to Speaker and Mrs. Foley.
I also want to thank the various house officers, who have been just
extraordinary. I want to say for the public record that faced with a
result none of them wanted, in a situation I suspect none of them
expected, that within 48 hours every officer of this House reacted as a
patriot, worked overtime, bent over backwards, and in every way helped
us. I am very grateful, and this House I think owes a debt of gratitude
to every officer that the Democrats elected 2 years ago.
This is a historic moment. I was asked over and over, how did it
feel, and the only word that comes close to adequate is overwhelming. I
feel overwhelmed in every way, overwhelmed by all the Georgians who
came up, overwhelmed by my extended family that is here, overwhelmed by
the historic moment. I walked out and stood on the balcony just outside
of the Speaker's office, looking down the Mall this morning, very
early. I was just overwhelmed by the view, with two men I will
introduce and know very, very well. Just the sense of being part of
America, being part of this great tradition, is truly overwhelming.
I have two gavels. Actually, Dick happened to use one. Maybe this was
appropriate. This was a Georgia gavel I just got this morning, done by
Dorsey Newman of Tallapoosa. He decided that the gavels he saw on TV
weren't big enough or strong enough, so he cut down a walnut tree in
his backyard, make a gavel, put a commemorative item on it, and sent it
up here.
So this is a genuine Georgia gavel, and I am the first Georgia
Speaker in over 100 years. The last one, by the way, had a weird
accent, too. Speaker Crisp was born in Britain. His parents were actors
and they came to the United States--a good word, by the way, for the
value we get from immigration.
Second, this is the gavel that Speaker Martin used. I am not sure
what it says about the inflation of Government, to put them side by
side, but this was the gavel used by the last Republican Speaker.
I want to comment for a minute on two men who served as my leaders,
from whom I learned so much and who are here today. When I arrived as a
freshman, the Republican Party, deeply dispirited by Watergate and by
the loss of the Presidency, banded together and worked with a leader
who helped pave the way for our great party victory of 1980, a man who
just did a marvelous job. I cannot speak too highly of what I learned
about integrity and leadership and courage from serving with him in my
freshman term. He is here with us again today. I hope all of you will
recognize Congressman John Rhodes of Arizona.
{time} 1340
I want to say also that at our request, the second person was not
sure he should be here at all, then he thought he was going to hide in
the back of the room. I insisted that he come on down front, someone
whom I regard as a mentor. I think virtually every Democrat in the
House would say he is a man who genuinely cares about, loves the House,
and represents the best spirit of the House. He is a man who I studied
under and, on whom I hope as Speaker I can always rely for advice. I
hope frankly I can emulate his commitment to this institution and his
willingness to try to reach beyond his personal interest and
partisanship. I hope all of you will join me in thanking for his years
of service, Congressman Bob Michel of Illinois.
I am very fortunate today. My mom and my dad are here, they are right
up there in the gallery. Bob and Kit Gingrich. I am so delighted that
they were both able to be here. Sometimes when you get to my age, you
cannot have everyone near you that you would like to have. I cannot say
how much I learned from my Dad and his years of serving in the U.S.
Army and how much I learned from my Mother, who is clearly my most
enthusiastic cheerleader.
My daughters are here up in the gallery, too. They are Kathy Lovewith
and her husband Paul, and Jackie and her husban Mark Zyler. Of course,
the person who clearly is my closest friend and my best adviser and
whom if I listened to about 20 percent more, I would get in less
trouble, my wife Marianne, is in the gallery as well.
I have a very large extended family between Marianne and me. They are
virtually all in town, and we have done our part for the Washington
tourist season. But I could not help, when I first came on the floor
earlier, I saw a number of the young people who are here. I met a
number of the children who are on the floor and the young adults, who
are close to 12 years of age. I could not help but think that sitting
in the back rail near the center of the House is one of my nephews,
Kevin McPherson, who is 5. My nieces Susan Brown, who is 6, and Emily
Brown, who is 8, and Laura McPherson, who is 9, are all back there,
too. That is probably more than I was allowed to bring on, but they are
my nieces and my nephews. I have two other nephews a little older who
are sitting in the gallery.
I could not help but think as a way I wanted to start the Speakership
and to talk to every Member, that in a sense these young people around
us are what this institution is really all about. Much more than the
negative advertising and the interest groups and all the different
things that make politics all too often cynical, nasty, and sometimes
frankly just plan miserable, what makes politics worthwhile is the
choice, as Dick Gephardt said, between what we see so tragically on the
evening news and the way we try to work very hard to make this system
of free, representative self-government work. The ultimate reason for
doing that is these children, the country they will inherit, and the
world they will live in.
We are starting the 104th Congress. I do not know if you have every
thought about this, but for 208 years, we bring together the most
diverse country in the history of the world. We send all sorts of
people here. Each of us could find at least one Member we thought was
weird. I will tell you, if you went around the room the person chosen
to be weird would be different for virtually every one of us. Because
we do allow and insist upon the right of a free people to send an
extraordinary diversity of people here.
Brian Lamb of C-SPAN read to me Friday a phrase from de Tocqueville
that was so central to the House. I have been reading Remini's
biography of Henry Clay and Clay, as the first strong Speaker, always
preferred the House. He preferred the House to the Senate although he
served in both. He said the House is more vital, more active, more
dynamic, and more common.
This is what de Tocqueville wrote: ``Often there is not a
distinguished man in the whole number. Its members are almost all
obscure individuals whose names bring no associations to mind. They are
mostly village lawyers, men in trade, or even persons belonging to the
lower classes of society.''
If we include women, I do not know that we would change much. But the
word ``vulgar'' in de Tocqueville's time had a very particular meaning.
It is a meaning the world would do well to study in this room. You see,
de Tocqueville was an aristocrat. He lived
[[Page H6]] in a world of kings and princes. The folks who come here do
so by the one single act that their citizens freely chose them. I do
not care what your ethnic background is, or your
ideology. I do not care if you are younger or older. I do not care if
you are born in America of if you are a naturalized citizen. Everyone
of the 435 people have equal standing because their citizens freely
sent them. Their voice should be heard and they should have a right to
participate. It is the most marvelous act of a complex giant country
trying to argue and talk. And, as Dick Gephardt said, to have a great
debate, to reach great decisions, not through a civil war, not by
bombing one of our regional capitals, not by killing a half million
people, and not by having snipers. Let me say unequivocally, I condemn
all acts of violence against the law by all people for all reasons.
This is a society of law and a society of civil behavior.
Here we are as commoners together, to some extent Democrats and
Republicans, to some extent liberals and conservatives, but Americans
all. Steve Gunderson today gave me a copy of the ``Portable Abraham
Lincoln.'' He suggested there is much for me to learn about our party,
but I would also say that it does not hurt to have a copy of the
portable F.D.R.
This is a great country of great people. If there is any one factor
or acts of my life that trikes me as I stand up here as the first
Republican in 40 years to do so. When I first became whip in 1989,
Russia was beginning to change, the Soviet Union as it was then. Into
my whip's office one day came eight Russians and a Lithuanian, members
of the Communist Party, newspaper editors. They asked me, ``What does a
whip do?''
They said, ``In Russia we have never had a free parliament since 1917
and that was only for a few months, so what do you do?''
I tried to explain, as Dave Bonior or Tom DeLay might now. It is a
little strange if you are from a dictatorship to explain you are called
the whip but you do not really have a whip, you are elected by the
people you are supposed to pressure--other members. If you pressure
them too much they will not reelect you. On the other hand If you do
not pressure them enough they will not reelect you. Democracy is hard.
It if frustrating.
So our group came into the Chamber. The Lithuanian was a man in his
late sixties, and I allowed him to come up here and sit and be Speaker,
something many of us have done with constituents. Remember, this is the
very beginning of perestroika and glasnost. When he came out of the
chair, he was physically trembling. He was almost in tears. He said,
``Ever since World War II, I have remembered what the Americans did and
I have never believed the propaganda. But I have to tell you, I did not
think in my life that I would be able to sit at the center of
freedom.''
It was one of the most overwhelming, compelling moments of my life.
It struck me that something I could not help but think of when we were
here with President Mandela. I went over and saw Ron Dellums and
thought of the great work Ron had done to extend freedom across the
planet. You get that sense of emotion when you see something so totally
different than you had expected. Here was a man who reminded me first
of all that while presidents are important, they are in effect an
elected kingship, that this and the other body across the way are where
freedom has to be fought out. That is the tradition I hope that we will
take with us as we go to work.
Today we had a bipartisan prayer service. Frank Wolf made some very
important points. He said, ``We have to recognize that many of our most
painful problems as a country are moral problems, problems of dealing
with ourselves and with life.''
{time} 1350
He said character is the key to leadership and we have to deal with
that. He preached a little bit. I do not think he thought he was
preaching, but he was. It was about a spirit of reconciliation. He
talked about caring about our spouses and our children and our
families. If we are not prepared to model our own family life beyond
just having them here for 1 day, if we are not prepared to care about
our children and we are not prepared to care about our families, then
by what arrogance do we think we will transcend our behavior to care
about others? That is why with Congressman Gephardt's help we have
established a bipartisan task force on the family. We have established
the principle that we are going to set schedules we stick to so
families can count on time to be together, built around school
schedules so that families can get to know each other, and not just by
seeing us on C-SPAN.
I will also say that means one of the strongest recommendations of
the bipartisan committee, is that we have 17 minutes to vote. This is
the bipartisan committee's recommendations, not just mine. They pointed
out that if we take the time we spent in the last Congress where we
waited for one more Member, and one more, and one
more, that we literally can shorten the business and get people home
if we will be strict and firm. At one point this year we had a 45-
minute vote. I hope all of my colleagues are paying attention because
we are in fact going to work very hard to have 17 minute votes and it
is over. So, leave on the first bell, not the second bell. OK? This may
seem particularly inappropriate to say on the first day because this
will be the busiest day on opening day in congressional history.
I want to read just a part of the Contract With America. I don't mean
this as a partisan act, but rather to remind all of us what we are
about to go through and why. Those of us who ended up in the majority
stood on these steps and signed a contract, and here is part of what it
says:
On the first day of the 104th Congress the new Republican
majority will immediately pass the following reforms aimed at
restoring the faith and trust of the American people in their
government: First, require all laws that apply to the rest of
the country also to apply equally to the Congress. Second,
select a major, independent auditing firm to conduct a
comprehensive audit of the Congress for waste, fraud or
abuse. Third, cut the number of House committees and cut
committee staffs by a third. Fourth, limit the terms of all
committee chairs. Fifth, ban the casting of proxy votes in
committees. Sixth, require committee meetings to be open to
the public. Seven, require a three-fifths majority vote to
pass a tax increase. Eight, guarantee an honest accounting of
our federal budget by implementing zero baseline budgeting.
Now, I told Dick Gephardt last night that if I had to do it over
again we would have pledged within 3 days that we will do these things,
but that is not what we said. So we have ourselves in a little bit of a
box here.
Then we go a step further. I carry the T.V. Guide version of the
contract with me at all times.
We then say that within the first 100 days of the 104th Congress we
shall bring to the House floor the following bills, each to be given
full and open debate, each to be given a full and clear vote, and each
to be immediately available for inspection. We made it available that
day. We listed 10 items. A balanced budget amendment and line-item
veto, a bill to stop violent criminals, emphasizing among other things
an effective and enforceable death penalty. Third was welfare reform.
Fourth, legislation protecting our kids. Fifth was to provide tax cuts
for families. Sixth was a bill to strengthen our national defense.
Seventh was a bill to raise the senior citizens' earning limit. Eighth
was legislation rolling back Government regulations. Ninth was a
commonsense legal reform bill, and tenth was congressional term limits
legislation.
Our commitment on our side, and this is an absolute obligation, is
first of all to work today until we are done. I know that is going to
inconvenience people who have families and supporters. But we were
hired to do a job, and we have to start today to prove we will do it.
Second, I would say to our friends in the Democratic Party that we are
going to work with you, and we are really laying out a schedule working
with the minority leader to make sure that we can set dates certain to
go home. That does mean that if 2 or 3 weeks out we are running short
we will, frankly, have longer sessions on Tuesday, Wednesday, and
Thursday. We will try to work this out on a bipartisan basis to, in a
workmanlike way, get it done. It is going to mean the busiest early
months since 1933.
Beyond the Contract I think there are two giant challenges. I know I
am a partisan figure. But I really hope
[[Page H7]] today that I can speak for a minute to my friends in the
Democratic Party as well as my own colleagues, and speak to the country
about these two challenges so that I hope we can have a real dialog.
One challenge is to achieve a balanced budget by 2002. I think both
Democratic and Republican Governors will say we can do that but it is
hard. I do not think we can do it in a year or two. I do not think we
ought to lie to the American people. This is a huge, complicated job.
The second challenge is to find a way to truly replace the current
welfare state with an opportunity society.
Let me talk very briefly about both challenges. First, on the
balanced budget I think we can get it done. I think the baby boomers
are now old enough that we can have an honest dialog about priorities,
about resources, about what works, and what does not work. Let me say I
have already told Vice President Gore that we are going to invite him
to address a Republican conference. We would have invited him in
December but he had to go to Moscow, I believe there are grounds for us
to talk together and
to work together, to have hearings together, and to have task forces
together. If we set priorities, if we apply the principles of Edwards
Deming and of Peter Drucker we can build on the Vice President's
reinventing government effort and we can focus on transforming, not
just cutting. The choice becomes not just do you want more or do you
want less, but are there ways to do it better? Can we learn from the
private sector, can we learn from Ford, IBM, from Microsoft, from what
General Motors has had to go through? I think on a bipartisan basis we
owe it to our children and grandchildren to get this Government in
order and to be able to actually pay our way. I think 2002 is a
reasonable timeframe. I would hope that together we could open a dialog
with the American people.
I have said that I think Social Security ought to be off limits, at
least for the first 4 to 6 years of the process, because I think it
will just destroy us if we try to bring it into the game. But let me
say about everything else, whether it is Medicare, or it is
agricultural subsidies, or it is defense or anything that I think the
greatest Democratic President of the 20th century, and in my judgment
the greatest President of the 20th century, said it right. On March 4,
1933, he stood in braces as a man who had polio at a time when nobody
who had that kind of disability could be anything in public life. He
was President of the United States, and he stood in front of this
Capitol on a rainy March day and he said, ``We have nothing to fear but
fear itself.'' I want every one of us to reach out in that spirit and
pledge to live up to that spirit, and I think frankly on a bipartisan
basis. I would say to Members of the Black and Hispanic Caucuses that I
would hope we could arrange by late spring to genuinely share
districts. You could have a Republican who frankly may not know a thing
about your district agree to come for a long weekend with you, and you
will agree to go for a long weekend with them. We begin a dialog and an
openness that is totally different than people are used to seeing in
politics in America. I believe if we do that we can then create a
dialog that can lead to a balanced budget.
But I think we have a greater challenge. I do want to pick up
directly on what Dick Gephardt said, because he said it right. No
Republican here should kid themselves about it. The greatest leaders in
fighting for an integrated America in the 20th century were in the
Democratic Party. The fact is, it was the liberal wing of the
Democratic Party that ended segregation. The fact is that it was
Franklin Delano Roosevelt who gave hope to a Nation that was in
distress and could have slid into dictatorship. Every Republican has
much to learn from studying what the Democrats did right.
But I would say to my friends in the Democratic Party that there is
much to what Ronald Reagan was trying to get done. There is much to
what is being done today by Republicans like Bill Weld, and John
Engler, and Tommy Thompson, and George Allen, and Christy Whitman, and
Pete Wilson. There is much we can share with each other.
We must replace the welfare state with an opportunity society. The
balanced budget is the right thing to do. But it does not in my mind
have the moral urgency of coming to grips with what is happening to the
poorest Americans.
I commend to all Marvin Olasky's ``The Tragedy of American
Compassion.'' Olasky goes back for 300 years and looked at what has
worked in America, how we have helped people rise beyond poverty, and
how we have reached out to save people. He may not have the answers,
but he has the right sense of where we have to go as Americans.
{time} 1400
I do not believe that there is a single American who can see a news
report of a 4-year-old thrown off of a public housing project in
Chicago by other children and killed and not feel that a part of your
heart went, too. I think of my nephew in the back, Kevin, and how all
of us feel about our children. How can any American read about an 11-
year-old buried with his Teddy bear because he killed a 14-year-old,
and then another 14-year-old killed him, and not have some sense of
``My God, where has this country gone?'' How can we not decide that
this is a moral crisis equal to segregation, equal to slavery? How can
we not insist that every day we take steps to do something?
I have seldom been more shaken than I was after the election when I
had breakfast with two members of the Black Caucus. One of them said to
me, ``Can you imagine what it is like to visit a first-grade class and
realize that every fourth or fifth young boy in that class may be dead
or in jail within 15 years? And they are your constituents and you are
helpless to change it?'' For some reason, I do not know why, maybe
because I visit a lot of schools, that got through. I mean, that
personalized it. That made it real, not just statistics, but real
people.
Then I tried to explain part of my thoughts by talking about the need
for alternatives to the bureaucracy, and we got into what I think
frankly has been a pretty distorted and cheap debate over orphanages.
Let me say, first of all, my father, who is here today, was a foster
child. He was adopted as a teenager. I am adopted. We have relatives
who were adopted. We are not talking out of some vague impersonal
Dickens ``Bleak House'' middle-class intellectual model. We have lived
the alternatives.
I believe when we are told that children are so lost in the city
bureaucracies that there are children who end up in dumpsters, when we
are told that there are children doomed to go to schools where 70 or 80
percent of them will not graduate, when we are told of public housing
projects that are so dangerous that if any private sector ran them they
would be put in jail, and the only solution we are given is, ``Well, we
will study it, we will get around to it,'' my only point is that this
is unacceptable. We can find ways immediately to do things better, to
reach out, break through the bureaucracy and give every young American
child a better chance.
Let me suggest to you Morris Schectman's new book. I do not agree
with all of it, but it is fascinating. It is entitled ``Working Without
a Net.'' It is an effort to argue that in the 21st century we have to
create our own safety nets. He draws a distinction between caring and
caretaking. It is worth every American reading.
He said caretaking is when you bother me a little bit, and I do
enough, I feel better because I think I took care of you. That is not
any good to you at all. You may be in fact an alcoholic and I just gave
you the money to buy the bottle that kills you, but I feel better and
go home. He said caring is actually stopping and dealing with the human
being, trying to understand enough about them to genuinely make sure
you improve their life, even if you have to start with a conversation
like, ``If you will quit drinking, I will help you get a job.'' This is
a lot harder conversation than, ``I feel better. I gave him a buck or 5
bucks.''
I want to commend every Member on both sides to look carefully. I say
to those Republicans who believe in total privatization, you cannot
believe in the Good Samaritan and explain that as long as business is
making money we can walk by a fellow American who is hurt and not do
something. I would say to my friends on the left who believe
[[Page H8]] there has never been a government program that was not
worth keeping, you cannot look at some of the results we now have and
not want to reach out to the humans and forget the bureaucracies.
If we could build that attitude on both sides of this aisle, we would
be an amazingly different place, and the country would begin to be a
different place.
We have to create a partnership. We have to reach out to the American
people. We are going to do a lot of important things. Thanks to the
House Information System and Congressman Vern Ehlers, as of today we
are going to be on line for the whole country, every amendment, every
conference report. We are working with C-SPAN and others, and
Congressman Gephardt has agreed to help on a bipartisan basis to make
the building more open to television, more accessible to the American
people. We have talk radio hosts here today for the first time. I hope
to have a bipartisan effort to make the place accessible for all talk
radio hosts of all backgrounds, no matter their ideology. The House
Historian's office is going to be more aggressively run on a
bipartisan basis to reach out to Close Up, and to other groups to teach
what the legislative struggle is about. I think over time we can and
will this Spring rethink campaign reform and lobbying reform and review
all ethics, including the gift rule.
But that isn't enough. Our challenge shouldn't be just to balance the
budget or to pass the Contract. Our challenge should not be anything
that is just legislative. We are supposed to, each one of us, be
leaders. I think our challenge has to be to set as our goal, and maybe
we are not going to get there in 2 years. This ought to be the goal
that we go home and we tell people we believe in: that there will be a
Monday morning when for the entire weekend not a single child was
killed anywhere in America; that there will be a Monday morning when
every child in the country went to a school that they and their parents
thought prepared them as citizens and prepared them to compete in the
world market; that there will be a Monday morning where it was easy to
find a job or create a job, and your own Government did not punish you
if you tried.
We should not be happy just with the language of politicians and the
language of legislation. We should insist that our success for America
is felt in the neighborhoods, in the communities, is felt by real
people living real lives who can say, ``Yes, we are safer, we are
healthier, we are better educated, America succeeds.''
This morning's closing hymn at the prayer service was the Battle Hymn
of the Republic. It is hard to be in this building, look down past
Grant to the Lincoln Memorial and not realize how painful and how
difficult that battle hymn is. The key phrase is, ``As he died to make
men holy, let us live to make men free.''
It is not just political freedom, although I agree with everything
Congressman Gephardt said earlier. If you cannot afford to leave the
public housing project, you are not free. If you do not know how to
find a job and do not know how to create a job, you are not free. If
you cannot find a place that will educate you, you are not free. If you
are afraid to walk to the store because you could get killed, you are
not free.
So as all of us over the coming months sing that song, ``As he died
to make men holy, let us live to make men free,'' I want us to dedicate
ourselves to reach out in a genuinely nonpartisan way to be honest with
each other. I promise each of you that without regard to party my door
is going to be open. I will listen to each of you. I will try to work
with each of you. I will put in long hours, and I will guarantee that I
will listen to you first. I will let you get it all out before I give
you my version, because you have been patient with me today, and you
have given me a chance to set the stage.
But I want to close by reminding all of us of how much bigger this is
than us. Because beyond talking with the American people, beyond
working together, I think we can only be successful if we start with
our limits. I was very struck this morning with something Bill Emerson
used, a very famous quote of Benjamin Franklin, at the point where the
Constitutional Convention was deadlocked. People were tired, and there
was a real possibility that the Convention was going to break up.
Franklin, who was quite old and had been relatively quiet for the
entire Convention, suddenly stood up and was angry, and he said :
I have lived, sir, a long time, and the longer I live the
more convincing proofs I see of this truth, that God governs
in the affairs of men, and if a sparrow cannot fall to the
ground without His notice, is it possible that an empire can
rise without His aid?
At that point the Constitutional Convention stopped. They took a day
off for fasting and prayer.
Then, having stopped and come together, they went back, and they
solved the great question of large and small States. They wrote the
Constitution, and the United States was created. All I can do is pledge
to you that, if each of us will reach out prayerfully and try to
genuinely understand each other, if we will recognize that in this
building we symbolize America, and that we have an obligation to talk
with each other, then I think a year from now we can look on the 104th
Congress as a truly amazing institution without regard to party,
without regard to ideology. We can say, ``Here, America comes to work,
and here we are preparing for those children a better future.''
Thank you. Good luck and God bless you.
Let me now call on the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Dingell].
(Applause, the Members rising.)
{time} 1410
I am now ready to take the oath of office. I ask the dean of the
House of Representatives, the Honorable John D. Dingell of Michigan, to
administer the oath of office.
Mr. DINGELL then administered the oath of office to Mr. Gingrich of
Georgia, as follows:
Do you solemnly swear that you will support and defend the
Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and
domestic; that you will bear true faith and allegiance to the same;
that you take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or
purpose of evasion, and that you will well and faithfully discharge the
duties of the office on which you are about to enter. So help you God.
(Applause, the Members rising.)
____________________