Dick Gephardt

Mr. GEPHARDT

Mr. GEPHARDT. Mr. Speaker, I join my colleagues today in calling for the prompt scheduling of the Hate Crimes Prevention Act. It is unconscionable that two years to the day since the shocking murder of James Byrd, Jr., we still have not been able to consider legislation that will help us better prosecute and, more importantly, help prevent the commission of hate crimes. Sadly, since the senseless murder of Mr. Byrd, the news has continued to be filled with stories of terrible crimes being committed against people just because of who they are--the murder of Matthew Shepard, a gay college student, the murder of a Filipino-American postal worker, Joseph Illeto, and the wounding of children and others at a Los Angeles Jewish community center, and less than two months ago in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania the murder of five people including an African American man, a Jewish woman, two Asian Americans and an Indian man. And these are just the incidents that made the headlines. We never even hear about the thousands of other hate crimes that, for whatever reason, go uncovered by the media or are not reported to law enforcement officials. As elected leaders, it is incumbent upon us to set an example not just in expressing our outrage about these crimes, but by putting new teeth into our anti-hate crime law enforcement activities. The Hate Crimes Prevention Act would ensure that hate crime protections are extended to all Americans and would provide resources to local law enforcement agencies who must investigate and prosecute hate crimes in their communities. We must take this important step to send the message that no one should have to live in fear simply for being who they are. In fact, we came very close the past two years to getting the Hate Crimes Protection Act enacted but could not in the face of Republican Leadership opposition. So, once again, I call upon them to drop their opposition and allow Hate Crimes Protection Act supporters to have the opportunity to make their case on the House floor and pass this critical legislation. Continued inaction is a disgrace to the memory of all hate crimes victims and to their families. It is also a disgrace upon us and who we are as a people.

Mr. GEPHARDT

Mr. GEPHARDT. Mr. Speaker, I am often asked if we can do anything here this year in a bipartisan way to solve the obvious problems that our country faces. This is an issue on which the Senate has taken a definitive position 57 to 42. Senator McCain said yesterday, what could be more simple. What could be more fair, honest, and straightforward? I cannot say it any better than that. This is a moment in which Democrats and Republicans can come together to pass an end to the secret organizations with undisclosed money. Vote yes for the motion to recommit. Let us get something done for the American people in this Congress.

Mr. GEPHARDT

Mr. GEPHARDT. Mr. Speaker, I urge Members to vote no on this rule and if it does pass, to vote no on this bill. Everyone in America knows that the most important issue in front of us is education and training children, the way we raise children. Go into any business in America today and they will tell you they need trained people. They do not have enough trained people to fill the jobs. We constantly are asked by businesspeople for legitimate reasons to open up immigration rolls to bring in trained people to fill the jobs that Americans are not available to fill today. Every family knows that raising a child today is more difficult in a very busy and different world that we live in. Parents have less time with children by about a third than they did 15 or 20 years ago. This bill walks away from all of those concerns. There is not enough money in it for the teachers that we need to teach our children in elementary and secondary schools across the country. It zeros out the funds that are supposed to be there for the 100,000 teachers that we should be trying to help the local districts with. It provides no funds for the effort to try to repair and rehabilitate and expand school building structures, so we can get smaller class sizes to go with the teachers that are all designed to get smaller class size. It guts the President's proposal to improve teacher quality and insist on teacher recruitment and school accountability. Denying all of this funding is frankly inexcusable and unnecessary. Part of the reason, I guess, that we are not able to put enough money into these efforts is that tomorrow we have a bill to wipe out the estate tax entirely. Everything that we do here is a choice. We have a choice. We can wipe out the estate tax entirely or we can simply modify it and make it more reasonable, thereby not spending as much money on that effort and using those moneys that we do not use on that effort to deal with schools and children and teachers and standards in public schools. We are making a choice this week that we want the top 10 percent of the top 1 percent of Americans to get an incredible tax cut rather than spending the money on our children, on our future, on our ability to keep this economy which is white hot going in the right direction. That is the choice we face today. I urge Members to vote against this rule, to vote against this bill so that we can make the right choice for America's most precious resource which are our children.

Mr. GEPHARDT

Mr. GEPHARDT. Mr. Speaker, I am proud to be an original cosponsor of this resolution, and I rise today in strong support of its adoption. Earlier this week, the Israeli government completed a courageous and historic act. It removed the last of its military forces from southern Lebanon, in compliance with United Nations Security Council Resolution 425. This act was inspired and led by Prime Minister Ehud Barak, whose strategic vision has once again opened up new opportunities for a comprehensive peace in the region. With this act, Israel has taken a brave step forward in the interest of peace for its people and its neighbors. It is now incumbent upon other parties in the region to follow Israel's lead, and to take the commensurate steps called for in U.N. Resolution 425 to further enhance security in the region. In addition to calling for an Israeli withdrawal from Lebanon, the U.N. resolution demands ``strict respect for the territorial integrity, sovereignty and political independence of Lebanon within its internationally recognized boundaries.'' It also establishes and directs a United Nations force--known as UNIFIL--to work with the Lebanese government to restore its effective authority in southern Lebanon. H. Con. Res. 331 addresses each element of U.N. Security Council Resolution 425, and calls for swift action by Israel's neighbors to demonstrate their own commitment to the terms of the U.N. resolution and to peace in the region. With adoption of this resolution, the House of Representatives will make clear what we expect to occur, now that Israel has withdrawn from Lebanon: First, we expect the United Nations to swiftly verify and endorse Israel's withdrawal, in full compliance with U.N. Resolution 425. Second, we expect the United Nations to move swiftly in conjunction with the Lebanese government to assert control over southern Lebanon. Third, we expect Hezbollah and other groups in southern Lebanon to be disarmed in order to prevent terrorist activities originating from that area against the State of Israel and its people. Fourth, we expect the Syrian government to follow Israel's lead and remove its own forces from Lebanese territory. And finally, we expect all parties to use this historic opportunity to resume negotiations aimed toward a comprehensive peace for all of the people of the Middle East. Israel has shown today that it can--and will--take risks for peace. America stands by Israel in its courageous action, and shares its commitment to peace in the region. I call on Israel's neighbors to demonstrate similar commitments in the days and weeks ahead.

Mr. GEPHARDT

Mr. GEPHARDT. Mr. Speaker, this is a great day for a wonderful institution. This is the room where all of the feelings and emotions of the American people on this very important issue get channeled and espoused and spoken as we make a collective decision on what is a very, very important issue for our country, for China, and for the world. I believe and fully expect this debate to be in the tradition of John Quincy Adams and James Madison and Daniel Webster and Henry Clay, and other great voices that have been heard in this building through the years. As I begin the debate, I would like to commend the leaders on both sides of the aisle who have worked to carry on this debate in the highest tradition of the House. I commend the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Bonior) who has led the opposition on our side. There is not a greater proponent of human rights that I know. I want to commend the gentleman from California (Mr. Matsui) and the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel) who have worked so hard to espouse their viewpoint. I commend the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin) who is one of the finest people I have ever known in the Congress, who does everything from his heart to do what is right. I honor the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi). There is not a greater fighter for human rights in our Congress than she is and a more staunch advocate for her views. Mr. Speaker, I am proud to speak on this issue. This debate is testament to what makes the United States the greatest country that has ever existed in the history of the world, based on the ideals of freedom; freedom of expression and freedom and liberty of religion and political speech. These ideals are what cause me to finally be against this bill. This debate would not happen in China. This freedom of expression that we are exercising on this floor and outside this building and in rooms all over this country in the last days would not happen in a country like China. In fact, if one insisted on speaking against the policy of the government in China, one would be arrested. America began with a simple revolutionary statement: We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights, that among them are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. And remember that when these rights were proclaimed 100 years later, Abraham Lincoln made it clear that the rights that were set out in the declaration were not just for the American people, but applied to everyone. Abraham Lincoln said this, the Declaration of Independence gave liberty not alone to the people of this country, but hope to all the world for future time. These ideals guided us through all kinds of conflicts and difficulties, World War II, the Cold War, bringing down the Berlin Wall, Soviet communism, the civil rights movement in our own country, apartheid in South Africa. I remember standing on this floor with many of my colleagues against the wind of public opinion, here and in the world, saying that the only way we will bring change in South Africa is by standing for these ideals, even though the rest of the world would not. Some would argue that this is just about trade. I would remind them that our greatest export is not our products and our services, our greatest exports are our ideals and our values. Getting acceptance of these ideals is also vital for trade. A country that fails to respect basic rights of people will not respect the rule of law, and without the rule of law in China, the rights of our businesses will not be accepted. China has not obeyed the agreements that they have made with us on trade. We have been promised access; we have not gotten it. We have been promised protection of intellectual property; we have not gotten it. Our trade deficit is now $85 billion with China, the highest as a percent of total trade of any country in the world. We export more now to Singapore, a nation of 3.5 million people, than we export to China, a country of 1.3 billion people. The track record is poor on compliance with treaties. Let us not reward them before we get them to comply. China's leaders show contempt for the rule of law. People are persecuted for their religious beliefs. People are in prison and tortured for speaking out politically. They are cooperating in the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. They threaten Taiwan even up to and including the latest election in Taiwan. The issue today is not trade. The issue today is whether or not to take away the annual leverage that comes with our voted-on review of progress on human rights in China. China will be in the WTO. We trade with China now. As I said, we have a deficit of $85 billion a year. The issue is, will we take away the review, the leverage? Advocates of doing this say the annual review is meaningless. If it is so meaningless, why does the Chinese Government insist, as a price of giving us access to their market, that we take it away? I will say why they ask for it so vociferously because they do not want the pressure. They do not want the annual debate on this floor. They do not want the light of the world to come in and see how they are performing, and this real pressure, I submit, will bring change. If we do not lead, who will? I ask, if we give this up, is anyone else in the world going to ask for this kind of review? I think not. When we debated apartheid in South Africa, everybody in the world said lay off of South Africa. Trade will change them. Do we really believe that we would have an end to apartheid in South Africa if we had not stood alone, leading the world, to say this must not stand? Supporters say that trade alone will solve the problem. There is some truth in that argument. I give them credit because I agree in part with that agreement. I want more trade with China. I want the Internet in China. I want the people to use computers in China. I think it will have an impact, but the evidence that we have to deal with is that as trade has expanded, repression of rights has also expanded. Our own U.S. State Department has said in its last three reviews of human rights that there has been bad deterioration each and every year. Last week, I met with Wei Jingsheng, a hero of mine. He lives here, in forced exile without his family and friends who are still in China. He was jailed for 17 years for writing on the Democracy Wall thoughts about political freedom and liberty in China. He told me in my office that when we press for human rights, things get better in China, and when we lay off on human rights things get worse. He said this, in 1979 President Carter normalized relations in China. He was in prison soon thereafter. He said in 1989 President Bush guaranteed MFN, even though there were problems in China, and soon thereafter the guns blazed in Tiananmen Square. He said in 1994, President Clinton delinked MFN and trade with other kinds of questions in China on human rights. He said he was immediately arrested. In 1997, after intense pressure from President Clinton and many in this room, he was finally released, under duress, to come to the United States. When we stand up, things get better in China for human rights. When we stand down, things get worse; and that is what this debate and that is what this question is all about. These have been good days in America. This debate has been healthy for America. I am pleased that so many people have participated in this debate. I am pleased there has been so much conversation and communication between our citizens and our representatives. I am pleased and proud to stand with labor activists and environmentalists and human rights activists and religious leaders. I am also proud that our business leaders have come here and argued from their heart about what they believe is right. The lobbying and the conversation is about to end. We are about to have to vote. All I ask is that as we vote, we keep in our heart and our mind two quotes: ``We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights, that among them are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness'', and that this Declaration of Independence ``gave liberty not alone to the people of this country but hope to all the world for future time.'' This country is an ideal and now in 2000, on this question, I hope we will stand for those ideals. Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

Mr. GEPHARDT

Mr. GEPHARDT. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 3639, which names the headquarters of the Department of State after a great American from my home state of Missouri the 33rd President of the United States, Harry S Truman. And I commend my good friend and colleague Ike Skelton for his leadership in spearheading this important effort. It is appropriate that we name the State Department's headquarters after Harry Truman, for he truly was a statesman of world stature. He was a visionary who inspired generations worldwide with his pursuit of peace through diplomacy, and with his defense of free peoples. From his unwavering support of establishing the United Nations as the best hope for peace, to the fateful decisions ending the Second World War, to the heroic effort of the Berlin airlift, President Truman demonstrated time and again his greatness. Yet at the same time, Harry Truman never forgot his roots in Missouri, where he had learned the virtues of loyalty, hard work, perseverance and personal responsibility. He not only talked about these Americans values, he lived them. His life story, the rise from farmer and haberdasher to judge to United States Senator, to Vice President, and finally to President of the United States, still inspires us with the truth of the old adage that anyone can grow up to be President. Through it all, Harry Truman showed us by example the value he placed on family and friends through the loyalty and honor he bestowed on those close to him, no matter how lofty his office became. Harry Truman's character and accomplishments stand as benchmarks by which public servants are measured to this day. Honesty, integrity and the courage to make the toughest decisions were the hallmarks of his presidency. Whether facing foreign aggression in Korea, pushing for civil rights at home, or standing against the divisiveness of McCarthyism, Harry Truman was a leader who served as an example to the whole world of the greatness of our democracy. He reached across racial barriers, party lines, and international boundaries pursue the causes he believed in. The immortal sign that sat on is desk ``The Buck Stops Here'' says it all. On so many hard decisions affecting the fates of so many people, the buck truly did stop with Harry S Truman. He used the power of his office and the power of his character to lead the American people and the world into a new and uncertain future, the foundation of peace and prosperity that we enjoy today. And he charted a course for America of active engagement with the world grounded in the values that have made this nation great. I am truly proud to rise in support of this bill. Harry S Truman was a great American and a great Missourian who made our country and the world better by his deeds and his example.

Mr. GEPHARDT

Mr. GEPHARDT. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the World Bank AIDS trust fund legislation we are considering today. I commend the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee) and the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Leach), the authors of this legislation, for their leadership and hard work in not only calling attention to the magnitude of the HIV/AIDS pandemic, but in developing an important initiative that will help address this horrible problem. I believe that the global HIV/AIDS crisis is the preeminent moral issue of our time. Yet, most Americans do not know very much about the crisis and the devastation that this disease has caused in Sub-Saharan Africa and other nations and continents around the world. In fact, the future of Africa may well be at risk, and the consequences of the failure to act may condemn future generations to a deadly cycle of poverty and chronic illness. It is simply impossible to imagine lasting political or social progress in Africa without forcefully addressing the increasing toll that this disease is exacting on her people. Most of us who live in nations with high standards of living cannot become complacent about our success and good fortune, and ignore the millions of fellow human beings whose struggle to achieve political, economic, and social progress is in such jeopardy. We have to significantly increase the efforts we have made to date if we are to succeed in helping other peoples curb the HIV/AIDS pandemic. So we must increase international funding for vaccine research, for efforts to stop the spread of the HIV virus, and for the care of those already infected. We must also address the crushing debt problem with which too many of the poorest nations in the world are saddled. I commend the administration for its efforts in these areas, and fully support its budget request, which calls for much needed increases in next year's funding. Because our response must be multifaceted, the World Bank trust fund that would be established by the Leach-Lee legislation will play a very important part, as well, by bringing together multinational, private sector, and nongovernmental resources to fight HIV/AIDS. I urge all of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support this important initiative. Again, I commend the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Leach) and the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee) for a job well done.

Mr. GEPHARDT

Mr. GEPHARDT. Mr. Speaker, this conference report is essentially the same document as the resolution Republicans had on the floor last month. The Republican budget plan, if implemented, would threaten our record prosperity and undermine the values of middle-class families. This budget reflects the irresistible urge Republicans have to enact massive, irresponsible tax cuts above all other needs and priorities of the American people. They give tax cuts a higher priority than extending the life of Social Security and Medicare, they are willing to sacrifice a real Medicare prescription drug plan for all seniors, and they are willing to make deep cuts in health and education in order to make their budget add up. There is not one dime in this budget for Social Security and Medicare. Republicans' unwillingness to do anything to prevent the long-term insolvency of these programs that serve as the bedrock of retirement security for millions of Americans is inexplicable. This budget pretends that it pays for a prescription drug plan. But, if you look closer, you will see there is not one penny appropriated for a drug plan. The money is ``reserved.'' It is a budget gimmick. It is not real. It will not happen. Talk is cheap; prescription drugs are not. This budget does not solve the problem. This budget contains Draconian cuts in non-defense appropriations. Nearly $120 billion in cuts need to be made, and, if Republicans have their way, they will cut deep into important priorities like education, health, veterans' affairs, and the environment. It is clear what the American people want. They want a fiscally responsible budget that will keep interest rates low and the economy growing, they want to strengthen Social Security and Medicare so that retirement security is protected for current and future retirees, they want a drug plan in Medicare that covers all seniors who want it, and they want to invest the surplus in their priorities, like making sure that children get the best public education we can provide. Mr. Speaker, this budget did not get better in the conference. It probably got worse. It continues to ignore the voices of working families who have made it perfectly clear that they reject the efforts to bleed the surplus dry for political tax cuts instead of investing in Social Security, in Medicare, in paying down the debt, in ensuring the future of this great country. Vote against this budget. We can do better than this.

Mr. GEPHARDT

Mr. GEPHARDT. Mr. Speaker, April Fool's day for the Republicans came a couple of weeks late. Every year they try to fool the American people during tax week into thinking that they are really doing something about the tax system that all of us struggle with and none of us are fond of. Are the American people supposed to believe that the party that is throwing a party for their wealthy friends and supporters with nearly $1 trillion in tax breaks really cares about the tax burden on middle- income families? Do Republicans really think that most Americans would rather throw a party for the wealthiest Americans, instead of using this money to provide a prescription drug benefit for all seniors so that everyone, not just the wealthy, can afford the best health care coverage in the world? The American people are not fooled by this tired routine. Republicans have controlled Congress now for 5 years, yet during this time they have never, never passed any comprehensive tax reform that would make the lives of Americans easier. In fact, since the Republicans took over the Congress in 1995, the Tax Code has become more complex, and it takes the average person who files a form 1040 30 percent longer to fill out their forms. They talk about it for a couple of weeks in April, but that is the end of it. There is no follow-through. There is no new code coming into being. One conclusion from the inaction could be that Republicans actually like a Tax Code that is riddled with special interest exemptions and they want to keep it that way. This bill proposes ripping out the Tax Code by the roots, but does not put anything in its place. We do not reform the Tax Code by appointing a commission. We do it through the hard work of coming up with real reform, a real alternative, not burning down the current one and just hoping that something might come along. Many of us have proposed tax simplification. I have done that, and I would like to work a plan through the Congress. That is the responsible way: Put forward a plan, let people criticize it, reform the current system. Republicans would rather pull a stunt to create an illusion that there is reform going on when nothing is actually happening. What would happen if we just abolished the Code and put nothing in its place? It would be an economic disaster. The Tax Code influences so many economic decisions by businesses and individuals: Whether and when to invest in property, whether or not to save, whether or not to sell stocks. If we rip up the rules with indecision in its place, we create chaos. That is why the National Association of Realtors, the National Association of Manufacturers, have condemned this proposal as irresponsible. Let us be clear about what we want from a new system. Two prominent Republican proposals, the national sales tax and the flat tax, both would hurt middle-income families in serious ways. If we are going to destroy the Code, let us pledge today that the replacement would be an improvement, not worse than what we have. Let us join together on a bipartisan basis to declare that the new system should do the following: First, we should not put a retail sales tax on prescription drugs and other health care services; Second, that the reform should be fiscally responsible and protect social security; Third, that it should be less complicated than the current code, and should be fair to people at different income levels; Fourth, that we should not put a retail sales tax on Internet sales; Fifth, that we should not shift Federal tax burdens onto State and local governments; Seventh, we should not jeopardize the ability of people to get employer-paid health care; Lastly, we should not shift the tax burden to low- and middle-income families. If Republicans agree with these principles, they should vote for our alternative. If they feel compelled to vote against the alternative of the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel), it is fair to ask why they are looking to tax prescription drugs and Internet sales, because that is exactly what the Republican national sales tax would do. I think it is time to vote for the alternative. If the alternative does not pass, I hope Members will vote down this very bad but often repeated idea.

Mr. GEPHARDT

Mr. GEPHARDT. Mr. Speaker, judging from comments by the campaign of Governor Bush, this Republican budget abandons conservatives. If we take a close look at the details of this budget, it is clear that this budget also abandons middle-class families. In their haste to embrace massive fiscally irresponsible tax cuts, Republicans are abandoning Social Security, Medicare, and fiscal responsibility. Despite their talk about how much they care about seniors, the Republican budget does nothing to strengthen the retirement security for current and future retirees. This Republican budget does nothing to extend the life of Social Security and Medicare. It does not provide one dime to strengthen the Social Security or Medicare trust funds. They ignore the looming shortfall that threatens the future retirement security of all Americans. The Republican budget fails to propose a Medicare prescription drug benefit to cover all seniors. The cost of prescription drugs is hurting all seniors. This is not a problem which is just limited to low-income retirees. The Republican budget does not help middle-class seniors. Their budget says that they need to be spending themselves into poverty with prescription drug costs before they get Medicare coverage of prescription drugs. To make matters worse, I understand at 3:00 a.m. in the morning, the funding that was in their budget to support a Patients' Bill of Rights was taken out. So I suppose that priority will also be lost. The Republican budget abandons the fiscal responsibility that we worked so hard to achieve and tries to turn back the clock to the early 1990s. They threaten the balanced budget and efforts to pay off the debt by the year 2013. The analysis by the Democratic staff of the House Committee on the Budget found that the Republicans would spend some of the Social Security surplus by 2004 and as a result we would be revisited by on- budget deficits if we enact this budget once again. The Republican budget proposes deep cuts in investments in education, health, and veterans affairs, putting our children and others even further behind. One may ask, why this abandonment? The Republican budget sacrifices fiscal responsibility on the altar of massive tax cuts. The Republican budget proposes $150 billion in tax cuts now, $50 billion after the smoke clears, and then possibly another $50 billion in tax cuts for the wealthy and special interests if revenues increase. The American people rejected these massive tax cuts that threaten our economic progress and retirement security last year, in last year's budget debate. Clearly, Republicans still have not gotten the message. The American people want a budget plan that pays off the debt, extends the life of Social Security and Medicare, provides a prescription drug plan for all seniors, and addresses our pressing health and educational priorities. So this is not the right budget. We need to vote against the rule and vote against this budget. Let us reject this budget and protect the surplus for the priorities of working families. I urge my colleagues to vote against this budget and for our alternative that puts families first and keeps our fiscal house in order.

Mr. GEPHARDT

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

Mr. GEPHARDT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. I would like to say a few things in regard to what the Speaker said. First, nothing in anyone's mind today is anything but concern for Dr. Wright. I am sorry that it has come to this. And I would hope that we would welcome the new Chaplain that has been appointed by the Speaker and try our level best to make his service in this Congress as positive as it possibly can be. I am very sorry that we have come to this point. I tried in what we did in our committee with Majority Leader Armey and Speaker Hastert to come to a bipartisan agreement on who the Chaplain would be. I had concerns when the process was announced that it would be maybe difficult to get to a bipartisan selection, but I hoped we could do that. We have a different view of the facts of what happened in the meetings, but that is not important. When we finally got to the point where there was not complete agreement between all three of us, I asked to come back to the bipartisan committee so that both the Speaker and Dr. Wright knew exactly the feelings of the members of our committee. And I tried in the best way that I could to get those feelings across. I have never said and never believed that there was bias of any kind in the making of this selection. And I have never said that. I do believe that in the future, as the gentleman from North Dakota (Mr. Pomeroy) has just said, we can find a process that will ensure bipartisanship in the selection of this important office. I will certainly work toward that end. I respect the Speaker's choice, and for my part and our part we will do everything in our power to welcome this new Chaplain and to make his service here a positive force for every Member of this body.

Mr. GEPHARDT

Mr. GEPHARDT. Mr. Speaker, I strongly support the motion that is before us today. The juvenile justice conference was supposed to hammer out a compromise bill. Instead, the conference seems to be in hibernation. It is bad enough that the conference has not met since last August. What is even worse is that now Republican leaders have abandoned any effort to work out a bipartisan solution. Republican leaders are now rapidly backtracking from efforts to move a bill out of conference that addresses the core issues behind the epidemic of violence that threatens our young people. Yesterday, the Majority Leader stated that he would support dismantling the juvenile justice bill to eliminate the Senate-passed gun safety provisions. I think we have a simple choice to make. Do we back down and eviscerate the bipartisan compromise in the Senate, or do we move forward to protect the children of America? The choice should be clear to anyone who is fed up with violence in our schools and in our neighborhoods. We must stand up for parents and the safety of their children by sitting down and reaching a bipartisan agreement to close the gun show loophole. I had a policeman in Chicago who had been shot 13 times by a gang tell me that, when he goes to the high schools in Chicago and asks the students how many have a gun at home, everybody raises their hand. How many know where the gun is? Everybody raises their hand. How many have shot the gun? Everybody raises their hand. He said that the gun show loophole is causing thousands of guns to flood into a city like Chicago. He said, look, gun safety measures will never stop crime, but it will help because, he said, the truth is our cities and our villages of this country are awash in guns. We do not need that many. We should not have that many. A juvenile justice bill that ignores the issue of gun safety is a hollow bill that is an insult to the victims of these horrible acts of violence. Today we must stand our ground and send a strong message to the conferees that they must return with a bill that represents bipartisan sentiment and contains real protections for our children.

Mr. GEPHARDT

Mr. GEPHARDT. Mr. Speaker, do not be fooled. This is not an illustration of bipartisanship at work. This debate is a good illustration of how to turn what should have been a proud bipartisan moment for the House into a partisan action by Republican leaders. The majority is performing a charade of bipartisanship. It is not the real thing. For more than 2 years, there has been a true bipartisan effort in this House to increase the minimum wage by $1 over 2 years. This effort has repeatedly run head on into the desire by Republican leaders to keep this issue off the floor for good, but the bipartisan coalition never gave up, thanks to the efforts of Members on both sides of the aisle like the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Bonior) and the gentleman from New York (Mr. Quinn). Because of their persistence and because of the insistence of the American people, Republican leaders had no choice but to bring a minimum wage bill to the floor. Like so many times before, Republican leaders decided if they could not kill a popular bill they disagree with, they would kill it through neglect. They would try and kill it, attacking it in the light of day on the floor of the House with legislative trickery. Today they are dispensing dollars to the wealthy through the tax bill that is going to be attached at the end, but pennies to the working poor. Republican leaders are forcing us to vote on a minimum wage bill originally designed to help hard-working low-income families that is tied to a regressive tax bill designed to give $120 billion in tax breaks to the very wealthiest Americans. They are preventing Democrats from even offering an alternative that would provide tax cuts targeted to owners of small businesses and family farms, giving relief to those who need it. For every penny that would go to working low-income Americans, Republicans want to give 10 cents or a dime to the wealthiest Americans among us. It is really emblematic of their values. Republicans do not seem able to ever give a break to working families without making sure that they first take care of the wealthiest in America with even greater largesse. We should be voting on a minimum wage that provides a real pay increase and a tax package that provides sensible, responsible tax relief to small businesses, just as the Democratic tax alternative would do. We should be voting on a bill that will be signed by the President, so we can get this minimum wage increase to the people who need it now. The Republican rule is designed to produce a bill that will eliminate the possibility that we can ever get this minimum wage done this year. The people who need it need it now. They do not need to have a bill vetoed by the President because the bill gets joined up with a tax bill that the President will not sign. If we are really, truly committed to working in a bipartisan manner and ensuring that a minimum wage bill passes this year, Members will join me in voting against this rule and putting together a rule that will allow us to have a tax bill joined with the minimum wage that will get this bill signed by the President of the United States.

Mr. GEPHARDT

Mr. GEPHARDT. Mr. Speaker, today we are taking the first step towards strengthening retirement security for all seniors and moving closer to putting Social Security on a firmer footing for the rest of the century. This time, we are doing it in a fiscally responsible way. I am gratified that Republicans are joining with us to repeal the earnings test for Social Security. This is truly a bipartisan effort. Democrats have overwhelmingly voted three times in recent years to raise the limit and President Clinton has requested repealing this earnings limit in his last two budgets. The sooner we send this to his desk, the faster we will be able to deliver this relief to seniors who want to continue making a real contribution to our society and our economy. Unlike a Republican attempt to raise the limit in 1998, the bill we debate today does not hurt the long-term solvency of Social Security to do so. This reform is long overdue. It is about time that we stand up for America's seniors. According to Federal Reserve Chairman Greenspan, we are beginning to suffer from a serious worker shortage that threatens our economic expansion. This bill will play a major role in protecting our economic gains of the last 7 years. It will not only help raise the standard of living for many of our seniors but it will also help us keep the strongest economic growth of our lifetime on track by keeping a generation of skilled workers in the economy. I met with a number of small business owners in South County St. Louis in my district this past weekend and they talked about their need to hire workers over the age of 65 because they are having such trouble finding skilled workers for jobs that are available right now. This bill will encourage seniors to return to the workplace and enable business owners to fill vacant jobs. This earnings limit is a relic of the great depression when we experienced double-digit unemployment among young people. The limit does not make any sense in the year 2000. It needs to be relegated to the dustbin of economic history. This is just the first step towards strengthening retirement security for all seniors. Now it is time to take the next step, using the surplus to extend the life of Social Security and Medicare. Today, we are voting to allow working seniors to fully enjoy their Social Security benefit, but that very benefit will be in danger if Republicans do not join with Democrats to take immediate action to strengthen the Social Security trust fund with an infusion of financial support. I hope my Republican colleagues will join us over the next several months in using the surplus to strengthen both Social Security and Medicare. This bill shows that Democrats and Republicans can work together to rebuild and build retirement security. I hope that we can build on this foundation and work together to put Social Security and Medicare on a sound financial footing well into the next century.

Mr. GEPHARDT

Mr. GEPHARDT. Mr. Speaker, it may seem to some people watching this debate today that we have heard it before. Last year, Republicans tried to sell their trillion dollar tax cut to the American people. They had town hall meetings. They had a road tour across America to pump up grassroots support. The gentleman from Texas (Mr. Armey), the Majority Leader, was on a television show and said this, ``We believe that public opinion is going to come out strong for this package as it is better understood. And we believe the President will respond to that.'' Well, the more the American people heard, the less they liked it. In fact, by the time Republicans returned to Washington in September, we did not hear a peep about the reckless plan to spend the budget surplus on an irresponsible tax cut. They have never tried once to override the President's veto of this risky and unpopular plan. It seems to me at least there would be a try, an attempt to override the veto if it is so popular and needed. So now the Republicans have a new strategy. They are taking the same chocolate cake they tried to devour in a single setting last summer and dividing it into six pieces to eat one at a time. Well, they are not fooling anyone. They have twisted and contorted the legislative process into nothing more than a marketing scheme designed to make last year's unpopular tax cut more palatable. It is bad enough that we are voting today on a costly tax cut with no committee hearings and no budget. But even worse, we are squandering a golden opportunity for future generations. We should, instead, be using the opportunity of a surplus to extend the life of Social Security and Medicare. We need to pay off the entire national debt by the year 2013. We should be considering tax cuts only as a part of a package that achieves all of these goals. Democrats support a marriage penalty tax cut. But it needs to be a tax cut that fixes the problem, not a back door means to enact a trillion dollar tax cut in cuts and pieces and bits. Nearly half of the relief of the Republican bill goes to people other than those that are penalized by the marriage penalty. Our alternative is targeted to the middle-class families who really need it, married couples that are currently penalized by the current surplus. We do not squander the surplus with our tax cut; we fix the problem. Instead of engaging in a tax cut feeding frenzy, Republicans should first put together a budget that meets the needs of working families. They need to come up with a budget plan to assure all Americans that they do not plan on passing tax cuts that, taken together, are the size of Governor Bush's massive and irresponsible $1.8 trillion tax cut plan. We need tax cuts that help all middle-class families, that reward work, support education, assist with long-term care, and support marriage. But before we do that, we need to come up with a budget plan that strengthens Social Security and Medicare first and that pays off the national debt by 2013. Anything less threatens our prosperity and risks our future.

Mr. GEPHARDT

Mr. GEPHARDT. Mr. Speaker, I rise to salute the 2000 Super Bowl Champions, the St. Louis Rams, and their remarkable season. The St. Louis Rams display of heart, courage, and determination made Super Bowl XXXIV a timeless memory for millions of Americans. Five seasons ago, the Rams organization brought football back to the people of St. Louis, who in turn have proven themselves to be faithful and high-spirited fans. In that time, the Rams have become an integral part of our community, our neighborhoods, and our schools by giving their time to various charities, public events, and most importantly, the people of St. Louis, They have brought enthusiasm and dedication to St. Louis, and they have done it with class and dignity. Kurt Warner is this year's Super Bowl MVP and a St. Louis Rams quarterback hero. He epitomizes what is good about athletes and serves as an excellent role model for people of all ages. Kurt's commitment to his family, his faith, and his team should serve as a lesson to us all. I would also like to congratulate Georgia Frontiere, owner of the St. Louis Rams, and John Shaw, President of the St. Louis Rams. Their devotion to the team and their love of St. Louis was crucial to our Super Bowl victory. Their love of the Rams is only paralleled by their love of St. Louis, as demonstrated by their efforts through the Rams Foundation. They have made hundreds of donations to schools and charitable organizations throughout the St. Louis area. Under their leadership, the Rams will continue to be a winning team for many seasons to come. Mr. Speaker, I am proud to say I am from St. Louis, and I am just as proud to say I am a Rams fan. Thank you and congratulations to the St. Louis Rams.

Mr. GEPHARDT

Mr. GEPHARDT. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the Members of the Committee on Appropriations on both sides of the aisle for tremendous long hours and hard work. I want to thank all of the Members of the President's staff for the work that they did in trying to bring this to a successful conclusion. Mr. Speaker, this has been an imperfect process, and this is an imperfect bill. But on balance, it has more to recommend it than not, and I will support its final passage. Procedurally, this bill repeats many of the same mistakes that were made last fall by the leadership. Despite the promises of the Speaker last January, once again we have a bill that was not done on time and was not done in regular order. We have an omnibus bill that reflects a ``kitchen sink'' approach to governing and, once again, Members did not have adequate time to read the bill to understand all of its provisions. On the substance of the bill, I am disappointed over the family planning provision that was contained and attached to the U.N. funding. I do not think it is the right thing to do. And I am upset that we failed to include a hate crimes provision in this bill, and I think we had a chance to do that. But on balance, this budget is an overall victory for our priorities. The President and Democrats in Congress hung together in support of an agreement that has made a real commitment to the priorities that we feel are critical to the continued health and well-being of America's families. Once again, as we did lasted fall in our negotiations with Speaker Gingrich, we snatched a modest victory out of a misguided Republican budget process that cared more about providing a tax cut for the wealthy and corporate special interests than about doing the right thing for average Americans. We achieved a big win for our efforts to educate our children for the challenges of the next century. This bill contains funding for 100,000 new, qualified teachers to reduce class size and increase discipline and accountability in America's classrooms. I am very happy that that priority has been recognized in this budget. It makes a strong commitment to after-school programs to keep kids off the street and in safe and productive environments until they go home. And it advances us substantially on our goal towards getting 1 million children included in Head Start finally in this country, and I am very happy that that priority has been advanced. We achieved a big win in the effort to fight crime. This budget will allow local police departments to hire an additional 50,000 officers over and above the 100,000 that have already been hired to continue our progress in making our neighborhoods safe. Mr. Speaker, we achieved a big win for the environment by stripping out the most extreme Republican anti-environmental provisions that were sneaked into the back door of this budget. But for all we have accomplished in this bill, this Congress has this year failed the American people. Despite the progress we made in the last several weeks on behalf of these priorities, we have not done enough on the agenda of the American people. And instead of doing the people's business, we squandered at least 2 months debating a failed trillion dollar tax cut for the wealthy and special interests. Despite the chest beating, the button wearing and the commercial airing of the Republicans, this Congress failed to extend the life of Social Security by 1 day. We have done nothing to provide a prescription drug benefit for seniors to modernize Medicare to meet their current needs. We failed to enact key bipartisan reform efforts, the Patients' Bill of Rights, and the Shays-Meehan campaign reform bill into law. We dropped the ball, and we lost a real opportunity to modernize our health care system once and for all. And we did not help low-income families get a step up into the middle-class with a minimum wage increase. We did not strike a blow against violence in our schools and our playgrounds by passing common sense gun safety legislation. Our work, in short, is not finished. In many ways, it has not even yet begun. We intend to be back here in January ready and prepared to fight for the priorities and the agenda of the American people. And I simply say to our friends on the other side of the aisle, we have achieved a certain level of agreement here today on some important priorities. I am glad for that, and I thank them for their help in bringing that about. Mr. Speaker, in that same spirit of can-do, I say to our friends in the Republican Party today: let us continue to work together next year. Let us get a Patients' Bill of Rights that really gets the job done. Let us get campaign reform. Let us get something done on gun safety. Let us pass a minimum wage increase. Let us get Medicare reform. Let us extend the solvency of Social Security. Let us get a prescription drug benefit for our senior citizens. If we could do this, we can do that, and the American people would be very happy for it.

Mr. GEPHARDT

Mr. GEPHARDT. Mr. Speaker, I urge a vote for this motion to instruct. The issue that we are dealing with here is not a political issue. It is not a partisan issue, and it is not a party issue. After we passed a very strong and good bipartisan Patients' Bill of Rights here a few weeks ago, I had people come up to me in my district, people that I saw around the country and they came up to me and they said, finally the Congress, the House, has stood against the special interests and done what is good for patients, what is good for doctors, what is good for people. I want to urge us to keep that effort going and to realize it in this conference. Too often we have seen strong bipartisan measures be watered down to kill the real intent of legislation. We cannot let the bipartisan Patients' Bill of Rights fall prey to a back-door attempt to derail meaningful reform. The Senate bill does not measure up. We need to get a final report that looks more like the House bill and contains the solid protections that it contains. The Senate bill fails to ensure that medical judgments are made by doctors and patients, in consultation with their patients. The medical relationship that is important here is what goes on between doctors and patients. They are the ones that should make the decisions about medical care, not some bureaucrat thousands of miles away who is looking at the bottom line and not what is good for that patient. The Senate bill fails to allow patients to see an outside specialist, at no additional cost, when their specialist in the health plan fails to meet their needs. The House bill allows patients to do that. The Senate bill fails to hold managed care plans accountable when their decisions to withhold or limit care injure patients. The House bill holds plans accountable. If doctors are accountable, the people that are making half the decisions ought to be accountable. How can we have a system that says doctors are accountable for the decisions they make, but we let the bureaucrats in the health plans that are just looking at the bottom line and profit totally unaccountable for the decisions they make? The Senate bill applies only to 48 million people in private employment-based plans, where the employer self-insures. The House bill applies to all people with employment-based insurance, as well as people who buy insurance on their own. We have to get to work on this. It has been 4 weeks since we passed the bill here. We are going toward a recess where nothing can get done. Let me say what I have said before. If someone is in a health care plan and they need something that their doctor says they need and their life is on the line today, they need this bill now. They do not need to wait until next spring or next summer or next fall or not at all. If a loved one in their family is waiting to be able to get the right decision out of a health care plan that could save their life, they need this bill now. I urge the leaders of the Congress in the House and in the Senate to get this conference going, to get a bill that is more like the House bill than the Senate bill, and to get it done in the next 2 weeks before we leave this Congress. We owe that to the patients and the doctors and the medical professionals in this country. We can have a better health care system in this country, and this bill will go a long way toward doing it. I commend the physicians in this Congress in both parties who have stood tall for doing the right thing. God bless them for standing for their beliefs and their patients.

Mr. GEPHARDT

Mr. GEPHARDT. Mr. Speaker, today I am proud to join Representatives Rangel, Matsui, Pomeroy, Bonior, Frost, DeLauro and a number of other Democrats in introducing the ``Strengthen Social Security and Medicare Act of 1999.'' This bill represents President Clinton's proposal to protect Social Security by locking up the Social Security surplus so that it will not be available to be spent on other things and to strengthen Social Security by extending the solvency of the Trust Fund to 2050. Of equal importance, we will reserve by law one-third of the projected on-budget surpluses over the next ten years to strengthen Medicare. This is a simple proposal that takes the first step in the direction of preserving and strengthening Social Security and Medicare so that they will have the financial resources to provide the benefits that America's senior citizens have come to rely on. Democrats created Social Security and Medicare to provide not just a retirement program, but a true safety net for senior citizens, their survivors and the disabled. Social Security is the most successful Federal government program, lifting nearly 15 million seniors out of poverty. It is the cornerstone of the entire retirement system and is the principal source of retirement income for two-thirds of the elderly. The baby-boomers and their children have been promised the support that they see their parents getting today. We have a responsibility to keep those promises. This bill saves 100 percent of the Social Security surpluses, and ensures that the Social Security surplus will be saved to reduce the debt that was created by the profligate fiscal policies of the 1980's. Beginning in 2011 the interest payments that will not have to be made on that debt will be reinvested in the Social Security Trust Fund through 2044. The Social Security Actuary has analyzed the proposal and found that it will extend the solvency of the Trust Fund until 2050, an additional 16 years beyond current projections. Medicare also faces a financial squeeze as the baby-boomers retire. This bill creates a special reserve fund equal to one-third of the on- budget--non-Social Security--surplus over the next ten years that can only be used for extending the solvency of Medicare or providing a prescription drug benefit to Medicare beneficiaries. This is not the final word on either Social Security or Medicare, but it does lay the foundation on which long-term solutions to ensure long- term solvency can be built. In this respect it stands in sharp contrast to the Republican proposals which neither add a single day to the solvency of Social Security nor make any provision for using the surplus to strengthen Medicare. Finally, the Republican proposals have an escape hatch that would allow Social Security money to be used for anything that the Republicans want to call ``reform''; even a plan that could lead to cuts in benefits or the ultimate conversion of Social Security into a privatized plan that gives little protection to average workers and their families. We reject that false promise in favor of keeping the commitments to Americans of all ages that have been the touchstone of Democratic policies for more than 60 years.

Mr. GEPHARDT

Mr. GEPHARDT. Mr. Speaker, this Republican budget is a bad deal for America's families, and it is really when you think about it the worst of all worlds. It does not extend the life of Social Security by one day. It does not provide one penny for a Medicare prescription drug benefit. And worst of all, it hurts every family in America in some important way. Today's Congressional Budget Office letter to Speaker Hastert repudiates the Republican false claim about safeguarding the Social Security surplus. The CBO clearly and directly says the Republican budget has already spent $17 billion of the Social Security surplus on the spending bills. This letter does not use Democratic or Republican numbers to come up with the $17 billion figure, it uses CBO's own nonpartisan numbers. It exposes once and for all the clear fact that the Republicans are the raiders of the Social Security surplus they claim to have safely stowed in the lockbox. And, remember, the use of CBO numbers is something that Republicans felt so strongly about in 1995, they shut down the government over using CBO numbers consistently throughout the budget. They passed a resolution of the House in 1995 saying we would only use CBO numbers. Well, under the CBO numbers consistently applied across this budget, they say that we are spending $17 billion of Social Security surplus. Democrats are fighting for the real needs of families while the only real priority of the Republican Congress has been to squander the surplus on tax cuts for the wealthy and special interests. Democrats want to strengthen and extend the life of Social Security, and we want to protect and modernize Medicare. Democrats support the President's plan to devote the entire Social Security surplus to debt reduction and extend its solvency to the year 2050, and we have a proposal to add a prescription drug plan for Medicare. Republicans come up empty on both counts. Their budget fails to address the issue of how we can extend the life of Social Security to ensure that current and future retirees can continue to depend on the foundation of retirement security. And they have no answer for seniors who are forced today to choose between health care and prescription drugs and what they can afford. Some people say this debate is not real, that it is some kind of an inside-the-Beltway ritual, that somehow we enjoy gridlock and we do not want anything to happen. Well, people who say that are dead wrong. Go tell the senior who is going to be waiting for the meals on wheels and it does not come and it is not just the meal, it is the human contact that comes to that senior citizen to allow them to live in their home. This bill cuts thousands of meals on wheels. Go tell the child who is going to wind up in an overcrowded classroom because this bill does not contain what it should to try to get more teachers and to try to get more classrooms. Go tell the parent who is worried about dealing with their children using drugs that we had to cut the safe and drug-free bill. And ask the cancer patient who benefits from NIH research. I have been there. You have heard me tell the story of my son and what it was like to have that resident come in the room after he was diagnosed with terminal cancer and say, ``We got on the computer last night and we found an NIH therapy that might save his life. Don't get your hopes up but we're going to try.'' Let me tell you something. When you need that research, you need it. This bill puts the NIH funding off to the last two days of the fiscal year, some kind of a cheap stunt in order to make the numbers come out. It makes no sense. Vote ``no'' on this budget. Let us sit down as adults with the President and the leaders of this Congress, the appropriators, let us come up with a budget that makes sense for the American people, that saves Social Security and Medicare and does right by America's families.

Mr. GEPHARDT

Mr. GEPHARDT. Mr. Speaker, I join my colleagues and all Rhode Islanders in mourning the untimely death of Senator Chafee. The Senator was a principled voice who was able to work with both sides of the aisle on the issues close to his heart. He left a lasting imprint in our nation's laws--playing a key role in some of the most important legislation passed by Congress over the last three decades, especially in the areas of health care and the environment. He proved that a sustained dedication to one's ideals through politics can make a real and lasting difference to our communities and our country. His retirement would have left a void in Congress; his untimely death leaves a void in the hearts of all who had the privilege of knowing and working with a true statesman and citizen.

Mr. GEPHARDT

Mr. GEPHARDT. Mr. Speaker, I would urge Members to vote against this bill. It is a bill that the President will not sign. It does not address the priorities that the American people care about. And it betrays the words of the Republican leadership last night that they are interested in finding a sensible compromise to the budget mess in which we find ourselves. There was an important statement made by the President last night, and I believe agreed to by the Republican leadership, and that is that we are not going to approach this budget on a micro basis but we are going to look at it on a macro basis. This concession by the leadership is critical to our ability ultimately to achieve a successful outcome on the budget in the days ahead. We can no longer engage in a process of dealing with the appropriations bills one at a time because there are several other important issues that this Congress wants to address this year, minimum wage, Medicare buybacks, and tax extenders. We have to deal with the remaining bills in this context if we want to reach an agreement on the budget. The fact that we are voting on the Commerce, Justice, State bill today shows that Republicans are not keeping this agreement. The Republicans cannot see the forest for the trees. And the President has said no more signing of the trees until we see the forest. Unless we sit down and negotiate the whole picture, we are not going to pass any of these bills. We should not even be voting on this bill if we are serious about looking at the entire picture. Clearly, the Republicans still are not serious about negotiating with the President 3 weeks into fiscal year 2000, and we should not be voting on this bill if Republicans are serious about not dipping into the Social Security surplus. The CBO says that Republicans have already spent $13 billion of the surplus and are on their way to spending $24 billion. This bill is just going to make things worse because the spending is not paid for and will come right out of the Social Security surplus. Apart from the simple futility of even considering this bill, I am compelled to point out how this is a bad bill that shortchanges our priorities. First, the bill fails to build on the success of the last several years in putting additional police on the streets and in our neighborhoods. We have seen a 7-year consecutive decline in violent crime. Why would we want to reverse that now? The Republican plan is a retreat and it is unacceptable. Second, it is not surprising the bill fails to live up to our obligations to the United Nations. The Republican Party used to be the party of George Bush, willing to make difficult choices to uphold our role in the world. Now, even though Pat Buchanan says he is leaving the Republican Party, Buchananism remains. This is a neo-isolationist view that is hurting our strength and our prestige abroad. They do not care about stopping nuclear proliferation to developing countries. They are willing to put politics above doing the right thing as we saw in the Senate for the test ban vote. Finally, on hate crimes. We continue to see these horrendous crimes, but for the second year in a row Republican leaders stand in the way of taking strong action to combat this violence. It is an outrage that the hate crimes provision was left out of this bill once again. Republicans continue to listen to the far right on this issue instead of doing what is decent and right. If we keep rolling out these bills that are dead on arrival before the vote is taken, we will not find any solution to the overall budget problem anytime soon. If we insist on rolling out phony bills filled with gimmicks and waist-deep into Social Security, we will be here at Thanksgiving and maybe even Christmas. This is another Republican tree. Knock it down. Vote it down. Let us get back to the real negotiations to settle the budget, not phony votes which spend time and accomplish nothing and set us further back from finding the solution to this problem that the American people sent us here to find.

Mr. GEPHARDT

Mr. GEPHARDT. Mr. Speaker, this is not a serious attempt to resolve the budget which we should be doing. It is frankly a stunt. It is another gimmick. It is another way to not address the serious issues that are before us. The Republicans say that the Republican budget does not spend Social Security. The Congressional Budget Office already says that at least $14 billion we are into Social Security under the Republican-passed appropriation bills. If we take out the unfair earned income credit proposal, it is over $20 billion that we have already gone into Social Security funds under the Republican-passed appropriation bills. The President did have tax increases in his budget, offsets, whatever we want to call them. They were within an integrated budget. That budget did not pass the House. We are operating under a budget passed by the Republicans. The Republicans say that they pledged never to raise taxes, they pledged never to spend Social Security money. It has already been done in the bills that have been passed. I am even told there are ads running in districts saying that the Democrats somehow did this. It is time to stop the stunts. It is time to stop the gimmicks. It is time to stop trying to say that we are doing something or not doing something that we are doing. We all know the budget issues. There are answers to these problems that we can reach on a bipartisan basis. There is going to be a meeting this afternoon in the White House. Maybe the beginning of that discussion can go on. What we owe the American people is honesty, what we owe the American people is a budget that saves Social Security, that puts money into Medicare which is needed, which takes care of education, which takes care of the 100,000 police that we so desperately need in every community. These are the issues that we should be addressing. If we were serious about addressing the budget, a proposal like this one on the floor today would have gone through committee, would have been related to an entire budget and would have been a part of a new budget that we would be bringing to the floor today because the budget we passed cannot be implemented in the way we thought it was going to be implemented. So let us stop the stunts. Let us stop the gimmicks. Vote against this proposal. Let us get down to work. Let us go to the White House today and sit down and see if we can work this out and make sense of it. Working in a bipartisan way and in an honest way with the American people, we ought to be able to get this done.

Mr. GEPHARDT

Mr. GEPHARDT. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Coburn- Shadegg amendment and to speak for the Norwood-Dingell bill. And I want to commend the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Norwood) and the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Ganske) and all of the Republicans and Democrats who have worked so hard on this bill and especially the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell) for all that he has done to make this happen. The Coburn-Shadegg amendment, in my view, does not do what it claims to do. It fails to hold health care providers accountable. It lets them off the hook. It will not go far enough to guarantee that American families get the health care they need. In my view, only the Norwood- Dingell bill will return control of medical care back to where it belongs, to doctors and patients. It will deliver much-needed patient protections at a small cost to consumers and to business. I believe the cost is a modest price to pay to restore the much-needed balance in our health care system. The health insurance lobby and their allies are spreading a false message that the Norwood-Dingell will and managed care reform will force employers to drop plans and will cause a loss of jobs and blunt economic growth. This is not reality. All we have to do is look at the experience in Texas, which has had a bill much like the Norwood-Dingell bill. Information filed with the Texas State Department of Insurance shows that there has been no unusual increases in costs in HMOs. In fact, national HMOs that operate in Texas and other States have higher cost increases outside Texas. A recent study by the Kaiser Family Foundation found that the premium increases likely to result from a bill like Norwood-Dingell would be very modest. In fact, their study showed that it would result in a premium increase of less than 1 percent to a typical HMO policyholder. Now, let me say to the Members that if somebody is sick in my own family and is not getting the care that the doctor believes they should get, I can assure my colleagues that paying less than 1 percent more for a policy that would give me enforceable rights would be something that I would leap at, and I think all my colleagues would leap at, if someone in their family was direly sick. I have said many times that back in the early 1970s my son was diagnosed with terminal cancer, given no hope. The pediatrician said, he is going to be dead in 6 weeks. Then another doctor came in the room and said, we got on the computer last night and we think we found something that might work. This was back in 1972. I had good insurance, thank God. He got the therapy. If that doctor had come in the room and said, we typed in the computer and we found a triple drug therapy but the HMO has refused it, boy, I would have wanted to pay that extra 1 percent or half a percent to get the right to have that happen. And let me say, with all respect to my friends who have brought these other alternatives, the reason that we want enforceability and accountability and a right to get to court after a review by physicians is we want pressure on these HMOs and health insurance companies to make the decisions in accordance with what doctors and patients need. This is an important moment. This is the right bill. I urge Members to turn down these alternatives. I have great respect for the people who have written them and their motive and intent; but with all my heart I say to the Members of the House of Representatives today, this Norwood-Dingell bill is the right bill for the people of this country. If somebody is sick in your family, you are going to need this bill. Turn down these alternatives and vote for this very, very positive piece of legislation.