Dick Gephardt

Mr. GEPHARDT

Mr. GEPHARDT. Can I ask the gentleman about the veterans' expenses, which was included in the transportation bill?

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

Mr. GEPHARDT. Mr. Chairman, I would just like to ask the gentleman from South Carolina, did we not hear in the last few minutes the highway bill of $21 billion has not been accommodated in the budget?

Mr. GEPHARDT. The user fees have been renounced at about $8 billion to $10 billion?

Mr. GEPHARDT

Mr. GEPHARDT. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm) for the purpose of asking a question.

Mr. GEPHARDT. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, if the gentleman would yield, after speaking with Members in the other body just in the last few minutes, it is my understanding that there are Democratic Members prepared to take action, which they can take under the rules of the other body, to stop this bill without the food stamp legislation being in it from becoming law today or at any time in the future.

Mr. GEPHARDT

Mr. GEPHARDT. Mr. Speaker, today, the House of Representatives passed landmark legislation to improve our Nation's highways and transit systems. This legislation is an absolutely vital investment in our infrastructure. In my District, Highway 21--the deadliest road in Missouri and possibly the deadliest road in America--stands to see improvements that will save the lives of children and adults who drive on it daily. But, there's a problem with this legislation. I am outraged that some of these very needed investments in our transportation system are funded on the backs of veterans--just before the day we honor the memories of those who have fallen for our country. It is also regrettable that additional funding was provided at the expense of our kids, who will lose vital child care at a time when we should be increasing our investment in children. The majority of my Democratic colleagues object to these cuts. It is wrong that we have been forced to choose between safe roads and veterans health care, child welfare and other vital investments. The Administration proposed other ways to fund this bill, but Republican leaders refused to consider them. I voted for the Democratic instruction to the negotiators of this agreement that we not use veterans health care as an offset for highway spending. The Republican leaders ignored this motion. Our veterans deserve better treatment than this. I will support this legislation because of Highway 21 and the memory of those who have lost their lives on this road--dubbed Blood Alley. Action on a multi-year highway bill has already been delayed for months, and further delays could have serious adverse consequences on vital road and transit repairs across the country. But I believe we could have done much better than we have done today--and that we have simply created new problems that will have to be addressed in the future.

Mr. GEPHARDT

Mr. GEPHARDT. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the gentleman from Pennsylvania, Mr. Robert A. Brady, be permitted to take the oath of office today. His certificate of election has not arrived, but there is no contest, and no question has been raised with regard to his election.

Mr. GEPHARDT

Mr. GEPHARDT. Mr. Speaker, I rise to congratulate all of the Members who signed the discharge petition, which has brought about this rule tonight and brought about the consideration of campaign reform. And in particular I want to commend the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Meehan) for all the work that he has done, and I want to commend the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays) for all of the work and effort that he has put forth. I want to thank the members of our Blue Dog coalition here in the Democratic Caucus and all the work that they have done. And I want to commend the freshmen on both sides who have worked so hard to see that this issue comes up. In truth, this issue should have come up some months ago, when we had this tortured procedure of having a suspension. It is time for campaign reform. The reason the discharge petition got signed by so many Members, and the reason that so many Members in this body are for campaign reform is that its time has come. The American people want us to enact campaign reform. The perception in the country, right or wrong, is that money is the dominant feature of America's campaigns. People are sick of that. They want to have a control on the money. I would simply say to the Members that I hope all of the Members will vote for the Shays-Meehan bill. The Shays-Meehan bill is, in my view, of all the bills, and I have worked on many of the bills that are going to be up, is the best bill. It is the first step that we can take. It gets rid of soft money, the large contributions which have been so dominant in this system. We need to take this first step. It does something about outside expenditures, of outside independent groups coming in and spending thousands and thousands of dollars at the end of campaigns. It does not do everything that should be done in campaign reform, but it is a solid first step. And I hope that every Democratic Member on my side of the aisle will support this legislation with their vote, and I hope Republicans will support it as well. We should be able to get 218 votes on the floor of this House next month and we will make a blow for what the American people want to clean up this system and move it in the right direction. Vote for the rule, vote for Shays-Meehan when we get that chance.

Mr. GEPHARDT

Mr. GEPHARDT. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to H.R. 3534. I agree with the objective of this legislation--which is to ensure that Congress fully considers the costs of legislation to the private sector prior to voting on that legislation. But once again, House Republican leaders have hijacked a common sense objective--and turned it into a stealth attack on our laws to protect public health and the environment. This bill establishes a procedural obstacle--a point of order-- against Congressional action on a whole host of issues critical to the American people--from future increases in the minimum wage to broader patient protections for patients in managed care plans to the Senate- passed IRS reform legislation. And it doesn't deliver relief from all private-sector mandates. The bill's protection from mandates is in fact arbitrary and inconsistent. For example, assume that Congress extends the Superfund tax on big companies. If the bill used these revenues to clean up toxic waste sites--the very purpose of this tax--the bill would face a point of order under H.R. 3534. But if the bill used all the revenues to provide tax breaks to wealthy special interests, there would be no point of order. In both cases a private sector mandate is imposed--but in only one case is that mandate subject to review. Make no mistake about it. If this legislation, as the Republicans have amended it, were to become law, it would enact a procedural obstacle to programs that command bipartisan support--the highway bill, our toxic waste cleanup program, our airport and airline safety programs, and legislation to reduce underage teen smoking, to name just a few. In short, this bill gives House Republican leaders a procedural device to kill important health and environmental proposals without directly voting against them. It's all part of the Republican Congress' stealth agenda: to look for ways to weaken our health and environmental laws without the glare of publicity. Instead of attacking our environmental laws, we should be protecting them. And instead of sneak attacks mounted by Republican Leaders under cover of darkness, we should be debating all riders freely and openly. That is why I have cosponsored Congressman Waxman's Defense of the Environment Amendment. This amendment simply requires a separate vote on all legislative riders that weaken our environmental laws. If we are going to insist upon a careful analysis of the costs of legislation to the private sector, we should do no less for the environment. Over the past four years, the House Republican leadership has repeatedly weakened our environmental laws by attaching legislative riders--often in the dark of night and with little debate--on high- priority spending bills. Americans want healthy forests. But Republicans have used special- interest riders to clear-cut our forests and to undermine the protection of endangered species. Americans want our toxic waste sites cleaned up. But Republicans have used riders to stall our toxic waste cleanup program. And Americans want to reduce oil import dependence and the risk of global climate change. But Republicans have used riders to block new energy efficiency standards. In the recent supplemental spending bill, Republican riders gave out special subsidies for the oil and gas industry and launched additional assaults on our public lands. The Defense of the Environment amendment will give us a better chance to reign in these extremist attacks on the environment. It deserves approval. I urge your support.

Mr. GEPHARDT

Mr. GEPHARDT. Mr. Speaker, I rise to a question of the privileges of the House, and I send to the desk a privileged resolution (H. Res. 431), pursuant to clause 2 of rule IX, and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. GEPHARDT. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. GEPHARDT

Mr. GEPHARDT. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment, and I hope that it will be defeated. This amendment would travel us down the retrograde road of racial divisiveness by offering legislation that would deny educational opportunity to minorities and women. The Members who support this amendment wanted America to end the era of diversity and integration in our public institutions of higher learning. The Riggs amendment would destroy the years of effort and commitment that this country has made to expand educational opportunity. All the progress that we have made, and it is considerable, could be lost and reversed with this one vote. The Riggs amendment is described by its proponents as an effort to eliminate preferential treatment and discrimination in admissions in public institutions that receive funding under the Higher Education Act. But make no mistake, the Riggs amendment is not about eliminating preferences and not about eliminating discrimination. It is about limiting the ability of public institutions to make their own choices about how to reach out to qualified students in their application process. Like its model, California's Proposition 209, supporters of this amendment know that the majority of American people support affirmative action remedies that seek to be inclusive and remedy past discrimination, that aim to increase the attendance of minorities and women at our universities and colleges. They use terms such as ``preferential treatment'' and ``reverse discrimination'' in order to obscure what is really at stake here. I know that the American people support affirmative action. I have heard stories of countless individuals who have been benefited, who have been helped, who have been given an opportunity that they would not have had but for these programs. These are the success stories of affirmative action which we have not talked enough about. These people who had this chance overcame odds, surmounted the obstacles of discrimination, and they were allowed to fulfill their hopes and realize their potential, which they would not have been able to do without this help. The Riggs amendment will create a crisis, educational inequality on a scale which we thought we had left behind us when we passed the civil rights laws in this country. We need only to look at California's experience to know what happened when this new policy came into being. Under Proposition 209, the California State system has experienced the most significant drop in minority enrollment in its freshman classes in the past 2 decades. Proposition 209 has had such a devastating impact on educational opportunity for minorities in California, it has caused even long-time opponents of affirmative action to rethink their position. I remember what it was like in America before we had this kind of affirmative action that really brought people into opportunity. I graduated from the University of Michigan Law School in 1965. And in my class, there was one, one, African-American student. In fact, he was the only African American in the entire law school when I attended law school at the University of Michigan. That classmate was Harry Edwards, who is now Chief Judge Edwards of the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia. Last year in the entering class of the University of Michigan Law School, there were 25 African-Americans, and 22 percent of the entering class was comprised of students of color. Look how far we have come. Do we want to go back to 1965 when there was one African-American student in the entire law school at the University of Michigan Law School? Or do we want to continue what has been happening today because of affirmative action? I think I know the answer. I think I know the best answer for America and for our people. Let us not go back into the past, which was not successful. Let us stay with the present. Let us keep affirmative action. Let us keep America the land of opportunity. Vote against the Riggs amendment. Parliamentary Inquiry

Mr. GEPHARDT

Mr. GEPHARDT. Mr. Speaker, ideally we are able to put aside our partisan interests and consider the people's business, if not with a blank slate, at least with an open mind. The Speaker of the House has an even greater duty. He not only represents his district and his party but he represents the integrity of the House of Representatives for all Members. This Monday the Speaker delivered a speech in which he accused unnamed presidential advisers of being unpatriotic, accused Members of the Committee on Government Reform and Oversight for voting for a cover-up, urged the President and unnamed members of our party to quit undermining the law in the United States, and declared that in the last 2\1/2\ years we have lived through the most systematic, deliberate obstruction of justice, cover-up and effort to avoid the truth we have ever seen in American history. These remarks, which demean the office which he is privileged to hold, were repeated in the well of the House. The Speaker noted in the same speech that America is a Nation under the rule of law and that no person is above the law. I fully agree with his comments. But speeches are empty sentiments unless they are practiced through our public behavior. There is more to the rule of law than after-dinner rhetoric. The rule of law requires impartial and competent investigations. It assumes the Speaker will not prejudge the results of these investigations. It requires, if not charity towards all, at least an absence of malice. The Speaker's remarks have shown that he falls far short of this standard. I have sent him a letter and asked him here today to recuse himself from all further actions connected with this investigation. We must restore a sense of fairness to this process and integrity to this House.

Mr. GEPHARDT

Mr. GEPHARDT. Madam Speaker, I deeply appreciate the comments that the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Armey), the Majority Leader, just made. I take very seriously the idea that he says that Republican Members of the House are concerned about the children and concerned about education. I accept that completely. I believe Members, all Members of this House want to improve the education and the upbringing of all of our children. That is a very important beginning agreement. We have a disagreement, obviously, about the role of vouchers and whether or not to take some of the money that we are spending on public education to give to vouchers that can be used in private and other schools. But we ought to build on our agreement rather than suffering from this ongoing disagreement. All of us want the children of the District of Columbia and every other jurisdiction in the country to succeed, to learn, to have proper values, to be productive, healthy citizens. That must be our number one goal. We believe that vouchers do not advance us toward that goal. Our concern, which is sincere and heartfelt, is that the children that are left behind will do worse, worse as a result of this legislation. Seventy-six thousand youngsters will not have the benefit of the vouchers. The 7,000 who get them may do better; they may not do better. But the 76,000 that are left behind will be hurt. Madam Speaker, what we should be talking about today are the kinds of things that the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia has brought forward, creative ideas to improve public education. And I take seriously what the majority leader has said about accountability. We should be for accountability. I put in legislation I call ``Reward for Results.'' It says that Federal aid, at least part of Federal aid, ought to be conditioned upon a school achieving results. We should be able to find out if children can read, write and compute at certain ages. And we should, in my view, be willing to condition part of Federal aid on them being able to achieve those conclusions. What I would hope we could have here is a discussion between the parties on creative ideas to fix the public schools that do not work; to realize that most of the public schools do work and do a very good job, but the ones that do not, we cannot afford that result. So, I hope Members will vote against this idea of vouchers. I hope we will meet again and talk about creative ideas to fix the public schools, to make them accountable, to get the results that we need, to make sure that every child is a productive citizen. I am heartened by what the Majority Leader has said today. I think we can find an agreement. I do not think this is it. I urge Members to vote against this bill. I wish the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia had the ability to bring her motion to recommit today, and I hope that if we could defeat this bill we could come back with a bipartisan agreement on education that would move us in the right direction.

Mr. GEPHARDT

Mr. GEPHARDT. Mr. Speaker, this is, to put it simply, a public health issue. If we are to fight against drugs and drug use and against further cases of HIV, we have to ask local governments and scientists to help us with the best way to bring about the prevention of both of those occurrences. And what the best scientists have told us and what some local and private agencies tell us, is that this kind of program gives us the best chance to both prevent further cases of HIV and to prevent further drug use. What we know from experience in many local jurisdictions is that if people are brought into a drug prevention and drug treatment program, they can be gotten off of their addiction. We know that drug use is an addictive disease and the way to get people to not be addicted is to get them into drug treatment, and we know that these programs are the way in many, many cases we can get people into drug treatment. Mr. Speaker, this is a doubleheader victory. We can prevent drug use, stop drug use, and prevent HIV, both of which have huge costs for our society. This is a matter of common sense and good judgment. Mr. Speaker, I say to the Members today, why should the Federal Government be telling local governments and jurisdictions and private agencies that they should not do something that they feel is working? This is a case where we might even use good Republican arguments that the Federal Government should not be dictating to local jurisdictions, we ought to be following their good judgment and practice and experience. Mr. Speaker, I say to Members: Vote against this bill. Let us prevent drug use. Let us stop drug use. Let us prevent HIV. Let us follow the science, follow the facts and do the right thing for the American people. I urge Members to vote against this bill.

Mr. GEPHARDT

Mr. GEPHARDT. Mr. Speaker, I support this bipartisan effort to further a national dialogue on Social Security. Social Security is the towering achievement of our democracy in the twentieth century. It has bestowed on millions of Americans a measure of financial security and freedom from fear of spending their retirement in impoverishment. It has taken us decades to build a program that has worked so well to keep retirees out of poverty. That has been so successful in supplying survival income for widows and their children when their loved one dies unexpectedly. And that has given so many disabled people income when they were unable to work. It would be a national disgrace if we damage a program that has done so much good for so many people. We shouldn't take any steps that would drastically change the nature of Social Security. And we should make no changes without engaging in an intense dialogue with the American people who overwhelmingly support and fund it. We are hearing a lot about Social Security from people who want to divert the stream of Social Security payments from the trust fund into equity markets. Who want to change the whole nature of the Social Security system, from one where there is a sacred bond between Americans and their government, to one where there this bond is eliminated. Many advocates of radical reform want to change Social Security from a safe and secure source of income into a bet on the performance of the stock market. They want to transform the system from one where Social Security payments are guaranteed, to one where the level of payments will fluctuate based on the volatility of the market. In their rush to revolutionize, they have forgotten one thing. For most beneficiaries, their Social Security check is not money to put aside, or a source of extra income. For many Americans, their Social Security check is all that stands between them and poverty--it is their only source of income. To accomplish the drastic changes which they ultimately want, proponents of radical reform are trying to create a panic among all Americans who have a stake in Social Security. From their comments over the last several months, you would be convinced that the entire system was in risk of imminent collapse. That the best bet would be for Americans to take their money and head for the hills, or at least for Wall Street. This is irresponsible and just plain wrong. As yesterday's trustee's report made clear, there is absolutely no risk of imminent or long-term collapse of the system. We should be open to all reforms that work to protect the health of Social Security into the second half of the next century, but the basic structure of Social Security must endure.The system must continue to serve retirees, survivors, and people with disabilities. Benefit levels must remain adequate to allow beneficiaries to live a life of dignity. And the payments must be guaranteed to all participants in the system. The President has told the American people that all budget surpluses should be dedicated to the Social Security trust fund until long-term reform is accomplished. If we are serious about protecting Social Security for the next century, for all present and future beneficiaries, it is critical that we earmark these funds. This is the best use of this unexpected bonus, not for short-term election-year fixes. I urge my colleagues to support the motion to recommit that will reiterate the intention of the Congress to dedicate budget surpluses to Social Security. This is the best way to begin our dialogue with the American people--kicking off the process with a real sign of our commitment to the system. I know when I go door to door in St. Louis, there is no groundswell or razing the system or privatizing the process. Seniors and younger workers are all concerned about the ability of the system to pay out in the future. But no one I have talked to wants to dispose of the system which so many have relied on for so long. I agree with Bob Dole's recent remarks--that ``this is an issue which is easy to demagogue, but where we have an obligation to tread carefully.'' We need to move forward without destroying the system which has taken so long to achieve.

Mr. GEPHARDT

Mr. GEPHARDT. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to a good friend and dedicated representative of working people, Roy Wyse. Roy is retiring as Secretary Treasurer of the United Auto Workers International Union after thirty-six years of leadership in the union. Roy was hired by the Ford Motor Company in 1951, and immediately joined UAW Local 249 in Claycomo, Missouri. After being elected to the shop committee, Roy quickly rose within the UAW leadership. He was elevated to Secretary Treasurer in 1995, the second highest office in the union. The safety and welfare of the working men and women of the UAW have always driven Roy's life. He has been a tireless fighter on their behalf, and his efforts have had a tremendous impact on the ability of working families to hold a secure job, receive a fair paycheck, and raise a family. Roy has worked to help people outside the union as well. His community involvement has ranged from serving as president of a local board of education, teaching Sunday school classes, and working as a volunteer fireman. I applaud Roy's commitment to public service, and wish him and his wife Pat all the best in the years to come.

Mr. GEPHARDT

Mr. GEPHARDT. Mr. Speaker, it is with great pleasure that I rise today to join my colleagues in celebrating the occasion of the fiftieth anniversary of the founding of the modern state of Israel. Created in the aftermath of the Holocaust, the state of Israel has served as a beacon of justice, freedom, and hope to Jewish people around the world. Israel's deep commitment to a pluralistic democracy and a vibrant economic, cultural, and intellectual life has served as a model for many nations. And despite great adversity, Israel has been steadfast in its commitment to achieving peace and security in the region. These values have garnered the admiration and respect of millions around the world. It is these values that have also fostered the American people's great affinity and mutual respect for the people of Israel, and which have formed the core of the special bond between our two countries. Today the U.S.-Israel relationship remains among the strongest of any bilateral relationship in the world. The strength of this relationship is also a tribute to those U.S. citizens, many of Jewish heritage, who have worked tirelessly over the years to keep our Nation's leaders focused on the importance of this relationship. The United States and Israel have numerous common and deep interests, and together will continue to lead the international fight against the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, terrorism, and threats to religious freedom. Above all, we are united in our paramount goals of peace, prosperity, and security for all people of the Middle East. I am proud to be a co-sponsor of House Joint Resolution 102, which reaffirms the bonds of friendship and cooperation between our two countries on Israel's fiftieth anniversary. On this occasion, I encourage my colleagues to seize this celebration not only as an opportunity to reflect on the achievements of Israel's past, but also to use it as a stimulus to further strengthen the U.S.-Israel partnership. Fifty years ago, within minutes of Israel's leaders declaring their independence, Harry Truman rejected the advice of staff and took a momentous step in recognizing Israel's sovereignty. From that moment, the United States and Israel have forged perhaps the closest partnership in the international community today. it is in this spirit of friendship and cooperation that I extend my warmest congratulations and best wishes to the state of Israel and her people for a peaceful, prosperous and successful future.

Mr. GEPHARDT

Mr. GEPHARDT. Mr. Speaker, I urge Members to vote for this motion to instruct. I obviously reject the Speaker's categorization of some of us as protectionists. I voted for Fast Track when George Bush was President. I voted for the WTO. I stand ready to vote for Fast Track for President Clinton if we can have the proper provisions to recognize the rights and the needs of workers and the environment. I was ready to vote for a NAFTA that had sufficient teeth in the side agreements. To refresh everybody's memory, it was not long ago that the Speaker and I were called to the White House with then Majority Leader Dole and Mr. Daschle, and the President and Bob Rubin and Allen Greenspan told us that there was a crash happening in Mexico, this was after NAFTA was passed, and that we needed to replenish funds for the IMF so that Mexico could be bailed out. We all said that we thought it was necessary to do that because there was no good for America in Mexico going bankrupt. But after we came back to the House and consulted on both sides of the aisle, we found there was not a good deal of support for doing that. And so the President, using a Justice Department opinion, decided to go ahead with that loan. One of the reasons they felt it was important to do that was because while Mexico was going down, something was happening that none of them had ever seen before. That was, developing countries' economies all over the world, Thailand, Indonesia, were going down. Mr. Speaker, we are in a new world. And in that new world, technology has put us at a point where when one developing country has a horrible problem it begins to invade the economies of all the developing countries in the world. I believe the President did the right thing in using the IMF and Treasury funds to do something to help Mexico. As a result of that, the problem was stemmed across the world. Mexico is paying that loan off. In fact, most of it is already paid off with interest. The problem we face now is greater than the problem we faced with Mexico because it is not just one country that is experiencing trouble, it is six or seven or eight in Asia. Now, the Speaker says there is no rush and that he thought people were kind of overstating the problem a few months ago. Well, I do not think they were overstating the problem. But they were able, because they had funds available to commit, to go to these countries and to keep them from going into bankruptcy. So because of the existence of the IMF and the ability to do this, we have avoided tremendous problems. There is no good for any worker or any business in the United States to have any of these countries fail. Even with that in place, they may fail. And when we criticize the IMF, and I am sure there is a lot to criticize, I think we have to keep in our mind a little bit of humility about what is going on here. Let us face it, nobody at the IMF, nobody at Treasury, nobody at the World Bank, and I dare say nobody in the world really knows how to do what we are trying to do. We are literally trying to build a new architecture in our world for world trade. The truth is crony capitalism is not consistent with capitalism. And I now believe we cannot really have capitalism unless we ultimately have democracy and human rights. But we also know we cannot get those things to be achieved overnight, and so we have got to have a little bit of humility about what we know will work and what can bring these countries back to economic health. Mr. Speaker, it is great to have a pledge that we may get to vote on this before the year is out. We could wake up tomorrow morning or next month or the month after that and be in a world of trouble. The IMF, the truth is, does not have the ability to deal with these problems now. We have a chance tonight to vote to instruct the conferees to try to pull some of this funding into this bill. We may be sorry, we all may be sorry, if this bill does not contain the monies that the IMF needs. This is an important moment. None of us will like a world that is in free fall, and it will be in free fall very quickly if they cannot move and act to stem problems that we have never seen before in the history of the world. I ask Members and beseech Members to act responsibly tonight and vote ``yes'' for this motion to instruct, so we have a chance to bring to this bill the kind of funding that it needs for the good of the world.

Mr. GEPHARDT

Mr. GEPHARDT. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to this disaster relief and Bosnia-Iraq Supplemental Appropriations Act. I strongly support the provisions in this legislation that help Americans who have been involved in disasters around the country. I strongly support the activity of our military in Bosnia and Iraq. And I hope that we can get to a piece of legislation as quickly as possible that will support all of those efforts. I know full well how important those efforts are. We had a big flood in my district in 1993 and in 1995. I stood on this floor and pleaded with the House to give timely help to my constituents, and the House did. So I have a very deep feeling about the need for this legislation. But the Republican leadership, just as they did a year ago, has refused to act responsibly and in a straightforward manner to provide these funds that have been requested by the administration. They have insisted wrongly, in my view, on offsets which can be done under our budget act but which are not required under our budget act. In fact, we have provisions in our budget act that say that expenses like this which are truly emergencies do not need to be offset. But, again, the Republican leadership has decided to put in offsets; and, in my view, these offsets are very damaging in many, many areas of life in our country. Let me just mention some. It will hurt children who need help so that they can learn English. It will undermine the ability of our airports to construct needed runway enhancements and install new security equipment, as we are trying to do in St. Louis, Missouri. It would effectively end the Americorps program and could lead to more than a 100,000 of our elderly citizens losing their housing. I do not think these are the trade-offs that we should be considering when we are considering emergency legislation. These are emergency items. That is why we put that into the budget. These were things that were unforeseen when the budget was put together. If they had been foreseen, we would have found room in the budget. And we may find room in next year's budget. But to now come at the 11th hour and wipe out these domestic programs so that we can take care of bona fide emergencies makes no sense. If Members want an alternative approach, we will have a motion to recommit that I urge Members on both sides of the aisle to vote for that would simply take out the offsets and say that this should be treated as we believe it should be, as an emergency. But let me go further on why I think this bill is ill-advised. The Republican leadership has refused to allow the House to consider all the supplemental requests the President has forwarded. They left out the International Monetary Fund request. We have countries in Asia going into bankruptcy. The only thing that is keeping many of them afloat so that we do not lose more exports and have more unneeded imports in this country is the IMF request. If it sits for another 5, 6, 8 weeks, what will happen to the IMF and the countries that need help? Finally, there is the matter of United Nations dues. Here we are today, the leader of the world, the leader of the United Nations, and we cannot find a way to bring ourselves to pay our dues. We have the unseemly situation where the Secretary General has gone and made a peace in Iraq, which is good for the entire world, and he cannot get the leader of the world to pay our debts, our dues to the United Nations. The President wanted that in this bill, and it is not. It is being separated out. And all of this is being made subject to an untimely and unneeded request on the part of the Republicans again to put a family planning issue which has no place in any of this legislation as part of that legislation. My colleagues, this is the wrong bill. It has been constructed in the wrong way. It has the wrong offsets. I am for the disaster relief, and I am for giving the money for our troops in Iraq and Bosnia, but not in this form, not with these offsets. Vote for the motion to recommit. Vote for the motion to recommit to fund these programs properly. If that fails, vote against this legislation. It is the wrong thing to do.

Mr. GEPHARDT

Mr. GEPHARDT. Madam Speaker, since the opening days of this Congress, Democrats have been fighting for a fair and open debate, an open debate on all of the campaign finance bills that have been presented in this Congress. In the last election, the money in politics hit an all-time high of $4 billion, while voter turnout fell 50 percent, a record low for a presidential election. Average Americans feel that their voice is not being heard and does not count anymore, that they are being drowned out by the wealthy special interests. Democrats believe and know that we need campaign reform to regain the trust of America's families and restore integrity to the electoral process. But every time Democrats have called for a vote on reform, Republicans have refused to take action. It took the specter, literally the specter, of a discharge petition to spook the Republican leadership into finally scheduling what they called a vote tonight on reform. But the bill Republicans have come up with is anything but reform. The Republican bill would be a bonanza for wealthy special interests and a nightmare for average citizens. The Republican bill would allow wealthy citizens to have even greater influence in the political process by tripling the amount that people could give. At the same time, it effectively silences the voice of working families by imposing a worker gag rule on union members and others and blocking access to the ballot for Hispanic citizens. Common Cause has called the Republican bill a cynical sham laced with poison pill amendments. The nonpartisan League of Women Voters called it a complete travesty, a big step in the wrong direction. Public Citizens said, it is the exact opposite of reform. But that, frankly, is only half of the outrage we are witnessing tonight. Not only have the Republicans put a phoney bill on the floor but they have done it in a way that prevents Democrats and reform-minded Republicans from offering any, any, alternatives for what they wrongly call reform. Instead, we are racing through this debate on these phoney reform bills which, thanks to this trumped-up procedure, will not pass unless they get a supermajority vote. Imagine, they are saying tonight we cannot have reform, the one thing that people said they wanted in the last election, unless we get a two- thirds vote of the House of Representatives. It is a travesty to put that kind of test on reform. We know the Republican leadership is scared to death of what would happen if the House ever got to vote in a real way on real reform, like the bipartisan McCain-Feingold II, sponsored by the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Meehan) on our side and the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays) on the Republican side that we wanted voted on tonight. Finally, we will not give up. Democrats will continue to fight every day for real reform. One of the ways we have kept up the fight is the discharge petition; and just last Friday, our newest Member, newest Democratic Member, the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Capps), signed the discharge, which will provide for a full and fair debate on these issues. The American people deserve nothing less. Tonight is a travesty to the American people; and Democrats will continue to fight with like-minded Republicans to have, finally, real reform on the floor with votes on all the plans which the American people deserve tonight. We are going to get that vote before this Congress ends.

Mr. GEPHARDT

Mr. GEPHARDT. Mr. Chairman, there they go again. The Republican leadership has once again launched a major attack on working families and the unions that simply try to represent their interests. Just last week, Republicans passed a campaign reform bill through committee which has as its centerpiece a worker gag rule which would silence the voice of American workers by shutting them out of the political process. Now, today Republicans have brought to the floor a bill which represents a frontal assault on the National Labor Relations Act and the rights it preserves for millions of working people across this country. Mr. Chairman, this Republican bill would make it more difficult for workers to organize and easier for employers to get away with violating labor laws. The most egregious part of this bill is the so-called antisalting provision which would seriously undermine the organized labor movement in the United States. Under the Republican bill, businesses could refuse to hire or fire people, just because the employer suspects them of trying to organize their workplace. This legislation would overturn a unanimous Supreme Court decision which held that union organizers are entitled to the same worker protections as any other employee. In addition, the Republican bill, through the attorneys' fees provisions, would have a significant chilling effect on future NLRB actions, making it less likely that American workers will have their right vigorously defended and preserved. Finally, the Republican bill provides employers with a new way to delay and challenge union elections and restrict the NLRB's ability to reach a fair and just conclusion on unfair labor practice complaints. In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, one of the most precious freedoms of the working men and women in this country is their right to organize. The bill Republicans have brought to the floor today would have a devastating effect on the labor movement in this country, which has done so much to ensure that working Americans earn livable wages and have decent benefits for their families. President Clinton has already pledged to veto this harmful legislation. I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to vote against this bill and stand up for the rights of the hard-working men and women of this country.

Mr. GEPHARDT

Mr. GEPHARDT. Mr. Speaker, today my colleagues Leonard Boswell, Eva Clayton, Jim Clyburn, Lane Evans, David Minge, Collin Peterson, Earl Pomeroy, Glenn Poshard, Debbie Stabenow and I are introducing legislation to restore the farm safety net shredded by the Republicans in the 1996 Farm Bill. House Republicans want to end the farmer safety net. Democrats want to mend it. Over the past two years, America's farmers have watched large harvests and the Asian crisis push down grain prices as much as 40 percent. University of Missouri economists tell us that, as prices continue to fall, real net farm income could fall more than 8 percent this year. Producers are concerned. First, that the existing safety net is inadequate. Second, that even these protections, inadequate as they are, are scheduled to be phased out in a few short years. This bill restores a sensible safety net by giving farmers a better chance to market their grain for a fair price. This bill utilizes a market-oriented tool farmers know well: the marketing loan. Marketing loans have generally provided a safety net ensuring producers 85 percent of a commodity's 5-year average price. The 1996 bill slashed the safety net by cutting these rates sharply. Our bill will establish loan rates equal to 85 percent of historic price levels--providing more income stability. Our bill boosts loan rates. Corn and soybeans up $.30 per bushel. Wheat up $.59 per bushel. Cotton up $.04 per pound. We must take other steps to repair the safety net as well. We need an emergency price floor for dairy farmers in all regions of the country. We also need Congresswoman Clayton's bill to ensure hard-working farmers access to Federal credit cut off by the Republicans. We must also extend the ethanol program. Tomorrow the Ways and Means Committee will act on the highway bill. We call upon the Republican Chairman to extend the ethanol program. Ethanol provides us clean energy--and strengthens American agriculture. The ethanol program strengthens corn prices, boosting the annual income of a typical Missouri grain farm by $15,000 to $30,000. Last year, key Republicans opposed the ethanol program, and Congress failed to renew the program. This halted construction of a dozen ethanol plants--$700 million in investment--in rural America, costing our rural communities good-paying jobs. Congress can do better. So we are renewing our call to the Republicans: Stop the attack on America's farmers. Let's restore the ethanol credit. Let's stand together for opportunity for Rural America.

Mr. GEPHARDT

Mr. GEPHARDT. Mr. Speaker, I rise today as an original cosponsor of H. Res. 364, a resolution urging the President to secure passage of a resolution on China's human rights record at the annual meeting of the United Nations Commission on Human Rights (UNCHR) this month in Geneva. During the past eight years, the United States Government has participated in nearly all of the annual efforts to pass a resolution at the UNCHR addressing the Chinese Government's human rights policies. This pressure has generated limited but important results, such as the Chinese government's signing of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights and inviting the U.N. Working Group on Arbitrary Detention to visit last October. I have long believed that we should press for improvements in the human rights situation in China through the use of multilateral forums such as the UNCHR, bilateral negotiations, and other mechanisms such as the annual debate over renewing Most-Favored-Nation status for China. Critics of the annual debate on Most-Favored-Nation status for China, however, have argued that removal of MFN trade treatment for China is an instrument too blunt for the task at hand. They have urged that in place of U.S. unilateral action the U.S. should pursue efforts to ensure a multilateral approach to influence Beijing's human rights practices. When the Administration decided in 1994 to delink the MFN issue from human rights considerations, the President acknowledged that the multilateral dimension of our engagement on human rights in China remained critical. At that time, he stated that ``the U.S. should step up efforts, in cooperation with other states, to insist that the U.N. Commission on Human Rights pass a resolution dealing with the serious human rights abuses in China.'' To that end, earlier this year I wrote to the President with Democratic Whip David Bonior and Representative Nancy Pelosi to urge that the United States Government sponsor and actively lobby for a resolution on China's human rights record at this month's meeting of the U.N. Commission on Human Rights. In our letter, we argued that it would be a serious mistake, given the wide scale and continuing human rights abuses in China and Tibet, to remove that pressure before China takes concrete steps to comply with international standards. These steps must include significant improvement in China's overall human rights practices, including granting freedom of speech, association, and religion; enacting major legal reforms, including repealing state security laws and abolishing all so-called ``counter-revolutionary'' crimes; releasing political prisoners; acting to protect freedom of association for workers; and opening up Tibet to human rights monitors. I was extremely disappointed to learn on Friday that the Administration has decided against pressing for passage of a resolution on China's human rights practices at the U.N. Commission later this month. Failure to press for passage of a resolution will seriously undermine our efforts to influence Chinese human rights policies and represents a step backwards in our efforts to advance the cause of freedom across the globe. In making its announcement, the Administration noted that China intends to sign the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which would bring about improved multilateral oversight of China's human rights practices. While I agree that China's participation in this Covenant will be a significant achievement if it follows through on its commitment, it does not adequately substitute for the annual review and dialogue provided by the U.N. Human rights Commission. After China's first year of participation under this Covenant, its human rights practices will be subject to international oversight only once every five years. We must regularly review China's record in this area to continually draw international attention to its flagrant abuses of human rights. Only through such a review can we hope to sustain the momentum necessary to have any hope for meaningful and systematic changes in China's behavior. Examination of China's human rights practices only once every five years is insufficient to create any real momentum for change. In fact, this will best serve the Chinese Government's interest by keeping these issues out of public debate most of the time. Furthermore, I am deeply concerned that a failure by the United States to take a leading role on this issue at this crucial juncture would bolster efforts made by China in recent years to eliminate all international comment on its human rights practices, and would further fuel China's efforts to weaken the definition of basic universal human rights and the mechanisms designed to protect them. It would be particularly disappointing on the fiftieth anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights if China should succeed in its efforts to escape the scrutiny of the one international body mandated to protect and promote human rights. The U.N. Commission on Human Rights is one of the few instruments by which the international community has the opportunity to voice concern about human rights practices around the world. Lack of action at the U.N. Commission on Human Rights would greatly undermine multilateral pressure on the Chinese government. I hope the President will reconsider his decision not to lead efforts at the U.N. Human Rights Commission later this month, and I urge all Members to support the adoption of this resolution. General Leave