Dick Gephardt

Mr. GEPHARDT

Mr. GEPHARDT. If the gentleman will continue to yield, obviously, betting is not allowed on the floor of the House, but I am sure that was a friendly wager and not a bet.

Mr. GEPHARDT

Mr. GEPHARDT. Mr. Speaker, I would just hope that the majority would give Members a sense, as soon as it can be done, as to what the plan is for the rest of the evening. By other sources, I have seen the Speaker make a comment that we would be here into the evening and we might have votes on other matters. There may be motions on a new CR, there may be motions on adjournment at some point. I would just inform my own Members that I think they need to stay in the House and be ready for whatever happens this evening. I would ask the majority to try to inform the rest of us as soon as something is known.

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

Mr. GEPHARDT

Mr. GEPHARDT. Mr. Speaker, Members of the House, in my view this is the most colossal waste of time and energy that I have seen. Our job as a Congress is to send the President legislation, and the President then either has to sign or to veto the legislation. I used to say the President's pen is worth two-thirds of us, and it is. Nothing is in the Constitution about negotiating on planes going to Israel; there is nothing in the Constitution about carrying on summit meetings and negotiations. The Constitution is clear. We send the legislation, and he signs or he vetoes the legislation. We are now 6 weeks beyond the end of the fiscal year. The President has yet to receive the 13 appropriations bills that he was supposed to receive before that time came and went. He has yet to receive a budget bill. We call it by a funny name, a reconciliation bill. But it is a budget. He does not have it yet, and so here we are talking about a simple 2-week extension to keep the Government running and to keep interest rates from going up unnecessarily because we default on the debt. Now in the midst of this legislation what our colleagues are insisting on doing is putting into this simple 2-week extension what they want to do in the budget by raising Medicare premiums, and we can argue until the cows come home on whether or not these premiums on Medicare should be increased. Most of us do not think they need to be increased like this, but whatever people's views, we should not be here at 3:10 Friday, November 10, 6 weeks after our work should have been done, talking about our ideological differences on Medicare or on who can lobby the Government. When these bills get down to the President on Monday, or whenever they are going to get there, he is going to veto the bills, he has already said that, and then we are going to have to come back here and do what the congress must do, which is to develop another 2-week increase, or an extension, or a week, or whatever it is that we can pass, so that the Government will keep going, and let me just say for those who were not here, sometimes in the past, when we had a day or two when the Government did not operate, it is not a good experience for any of us, and it sure is not a good experience for the American people. They expect that we came here to do the job, to pass the legislation, and then the President can decide what he is going to do. Now I hope that we will get our wits together here in the next few days, and get a clean CR and a clean debt ceiling down to the President before bad things happen so he can sign them, so we can then get down to the hard work of trying to reach an agreement that will reach a budget that is good for the American people. I am an optimist. I think we can do that, and I think we have the ability to figure that out in good will and in good faith. But we get nowhere by standing out here fighting about whether the ideological riders that we have in the budget should be in these simple 2-week extensions. It simply does us no good. Now one final thing: If we cannot reach a budget, and I hope we can, we may be back here talking about a year extension of a continuing resolution. I hope that does not happen, but, if we cannot agree, and maybe we cannot with the President on what this should be, then I think we ought to take these issues to the American people. We are talking about a 7-year budget. We are talking about a 7-year budget. We are talking about far-reaching changes in the Medicare Program. We are talking about far-reaching changes in the Medicaid Program. We are talking about a $245 billion tax cut in the midst of trying to balance the budget in 7 years. Now if we cannot find that middle ground, and I am willing to try and find it, then I say let the President veto the bill, and let us do a 12-month extension without ideological riders, and let us proudly take these issues to the American people. They deserve the right to be cut into this decision, and I think I know the decision they are going to make. The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Dreier]. The time of the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey] has expired, and the gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. Livingston] has 1 minute remaining.

Mr. GEPHARDT

Mr. GEPHARDT. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to urge all of my colleagues to support this resolution--to pay tribute to one of the greatest soldiers of peace the world has ever known. Like all Americans, I was shocked and saddened at the senseless murder of Prime Minister Rabin this past Sunday. And the great irony is that he died as he lived--celebrating and advocating the cause of peace in the Middle East. To me, Yitzhak Rabin was the very essence of leadership, because up until the last moments of his life, he did not do what was easy; he did not do what was popular--he did what was right. He not only brought his nation to the brink of a real and lasting peace--he rallied millions of Israelis, and millions of people all over the world, in support of that crusade. Many of us in this Chamber had the opportunity to travel to Israel on Monday--to grieve along with the people of Israel. And for me, as for so many of us, the loss was as personal as it was political. For I know Yitzhak Rabin as a kind and caring man--as someone who carried a love for his people, and an abiding belief in peace, deep inside him. To [[Page H 11837]] talk with him--even to stand in the same room with him--was to feel his generosity of spirit, and his profound humanity. Yitzhak Rabin may be irreplaceable--and his kind of leadership may come once in a generation, perhaps once in a century. But there is one thing that each Member of this House can do to honor his name, and that is to keep his dream alive, to put into practice the peace agreement he has already secured, and to keep waging his battle for a comprehensive peace throughout the Middle East. If we can do that, if we can give meaning to the dream that sustained Yitzhak Rabin both in life and in his work, then we will know that the did not die in vain. Mr. Speaker, I urge Members to support this resolution to honor the name and the work and the commitment of a great human being, Yitzhak Rabin.

Mr. GEPHARDT

Mr. GEPHARDT. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to urge my colleagues to defeat this resolution, which will only make it harder for America to achieve a real and lasting peace in worn-torn Bosnia--a peace that may finally be within our grasp. Mr. Speaker, none of us wants to see American troops in Bosnia without the prior approval of this body. None of us wants to see America's children sent to Bosnia without a peace agreement that has the full commitment of all parties, and minimizes the risks to our forces. If we are ultimately confronted with that choice, then this Congress--the branch of our Government that is closest to the people of this country--must have a role in deciding and authorizing America's course. That is why I have no trouble supporting the second part of this resolution. But the first part would do something much different, and much more dangerous, than affirming Congress' rightful role. On the eve of delicate negotiations on Ohio, this resolution would say to the Serbs and the Moslems: Our negotiations do not have the support of the Congress, or the country. Take their words with a grain of salt. And we stand ready to revoke their promises before they are even made or before they are even discussed in the Congress. How can we possibly tie America's hands at the very moment when peace is within reach? If we try to weigh our negotiators down with terms and conditions before they even negotiate, we jeopardize what must be our ultimate goal in Bosnia: To finally stop the death and destruction. To end what have been the worst atrocities since World War II itself. To stand up for peace throughout Europe, which has always been in America's best interests. To second guess the peace process would be more than wrong--it would endanger any hope of a solution to this international tragedy. And it simply is not necessary. The President has already committed himself to consulting Congress, and seeking our support for any U.S. role in securing peace. This is the wrong resolution, and the wrong time to pass it. I urge Members to vote no, so that peace talks can at least proceed, without the damaging baggage this kind of bill would be.

Mr. GEPHARDT

Mr. GEPHARDT. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of funding for judicial gender and racial fairness task forces. The Violence Against Women Act of 1994 authorized research and education programs to enhance judicial knowledge and awareness of domestic violence and sexual assault. The act authorized $700,000 for Federal court task forces studying gender and racial bias in the Federal judicial system. The Commerce, Justice, State, and judiciary appropriations bill as passed by the House included the full $700,000 authorized by VAWA; the Senate version did not fund these important task forces. I would like my colleagues on the conference committee to stand firm for the House position and also that you fully fund the VAWA. It is essential that funding for these important task forces be retained. To date, at least 40 reports on gender bias and racial bias have been issued by Federal and State task forces on gender and racial fairness. Many of the improvements suggested by these reports have been implemented. Several years ago the court system in my home State of Missouri conducted a gender bias study which was received favorably by the legal community and the State judiciary. This study revealed that gender bias is a very real problem in the courts. It identified several key problems which ranged from the unequal treatment of women and minority witnesses, to statements of outright bias from judicial officers directed both to lawyers and to litigants. To preserve the integrity of our judicial system, it is essential that bias be identified and eliminated. Gender and racial bias task forces are part of a longstanding effort on the part of Federal courts to look closely at their own performance in an effort to improve the administration of justice. Continued funding for these task forces is essential if the judicial process is to be fair to all, regardless of gender or race. Mr. Speaker, I encourage my colleagues to support funding of these task forces for their continued efforts to ensure that all persons are treated equally in our Federal courts.

Mr. GEPHARDT

Mr. GEPHARDT. Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to recommit.

Mr. GEPHARDT. I am, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. GEPHARDT. Mr. Speaker, let me say, a few moments ago the majority leader, my friend, the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Armey] said that for 60 years we have been steering to the left and that now we should vote for a big change and begin to steer to the right. With all respect to my friend, I believe we should not be trying to steer left or right but we ought to steer together forward, to move this great country forward to meet the central challenges of our time. What is that? The fact is that America in the last 20 years has fallen to sixth in the world in standard of living. The fact is that real wages for the middle class in this country have been declining for over 20 years, the steepest decline since 1820. The fact is that American families are working longer, taking second jobs and part-time jobs, having spouses in the work force who did not have to work 20 years ago. And at the end of all that work, at the end of the month and at the end of the year, they have less money to spend than they had 20 years ago. The fact is that in the boom years of the 1980's, two-thirds of all the new wealth went to the top 1 percent, while most Americans, the bottom 80 percent, saw their income decline in real terms. So that the disparity between the people at the top and the rest of America has grown larger and wider than it has been in decades. Mr. Speaker, we have two problems. We have two challenges. How do we get the pie to grow again in this country so we can talk about everybody having a larger share of a larger pie; and how, along with that, we can decrease the disparity in income so that there is less room between the middle class and the people trying to get in the middle class and the people at the top. Mr. Speaker, I suggest to my colleagues that the budget we are talking about today does not move us in the right direction on either of those challenges. Let me talk about disparity of income for a moment. This budget we are about to vote on decreases the earned income credit for families struggling to get in the middle class. In other words, it increases taxes on people that are struggling to get in the middle class, people earning $25,000 and $30,000 a year. And in the same budget we have a tax cut, a massive tax cut for people at the top. It takes my breath away. I cannot believe that someone seriously, in 1995, at the same time could make those two suggestions simultaneously. It is wrong. It is morally wrong. It is economically wrong. It is the wrong thing for our country. Second, the budget does not address how we make the pie grow again. One of our former colleagues from this side of the aisle, Jack Kemp, is an eloquent voice for saying that we will never get rid of the deficit simply by cutting. We have to also grow our way to balance in the budget. I do not agree with a lot of the things that Jack Kemp, our former colleague, prescribed, but I think he was right, we have to grow our way. Are we going to grow our way out of this deficit if we are cutting student loans, which is the one way people in the middle class have a chance to do better and to advance their young people? Do we make the pie grow if we are cutting Medicare and Medicaid, which, in the case of Medicaid, is the one way that youngsters, two of five youngsters in the country today are on Medicaid. Are they going to have a healthy life, will they be able to produce and be productive citizens in our society if we are cutting the very way that they can do that? Agriculture. we have had a partnership in agriculture in this country for as long as any body can remember, programs to help farming families be able to succeed and provide the food and fiber that this society needs, which has been part of the secret of having a large and growing middle class. Most countries spend more for food and fiber than we do, yet this bill takes away those agricultural programs. Finally, Mr. Speaker, let me say that I think this budget, more than anything that we have dealt with, presents a very clear and different vision between these two parties. This budget really presents a different vision for America. A very prominent Member in the other body said yesterday, ``I was there fighting the fight voting against Medicare because we knew it would not work in 1965.'' My party, the Democratic party, fought for and enacted Medicare in 1965. We believe that Medicare has helped the American people probably more than anything we as a people have ever done. Mr. Speaker, I believe the rhetoric we heard yesterday is really the real debate that we ought to be having. If extremes in the Republican party really do want to get rid of Medicare and to change it so dramatically that it is emasculated, then let us have that debate. Let us be proud to bring that difference to the American people. If the extremes in the Republican party really believe that the right thing to do is to raise taxes on the middle-class and lower taxes dramatically on the wealthiest people in this country, then let us have that debate between now and 1996. Mr. Speaker, I say to the ladies and gentlemen of the House in conclusion, this budget and these next 14 or 15 months are about real differences and a difference in vision of where this country should go. Let the American people decide and I believe they will decide for Medicare and for the middle-class of this country, not the wealthiest of this country.

Mr. GEPHARDT. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. GEPHARDT

Mr. GEPHARDT. Mr. Speaker, for months now, I've had a hard time understanding how the Republican Members of this House could push a budget that demands huge sacrifices from the many, to lavish huge tax cuts on the few. I've had a hard time understanding how the Republicans could double Medicare premiums and carve up middle class incomes like a Halloween pumpkin--all to give about $20,000 a year to people who earn half-a- million dollars a year. Above all, I've had a hard time understanding how any Member of this House could so brazenly and shamelessly turn their backs on the middle class to dole out new perks and privileges for the wealthy. But now, I'm beginning to understand where all this injustice comes from. My Republican colleague, Frederick Heineman of North Carolina, has given us a unique window onto the Republican world view--and why it's so weighted toward wealth and privilege. According to Congressman Heineman, his own salary--more than $180,000 a year, and I quote, ``does not make me rich. That does not make me middle class. In my opinion that makes me lower middle class.'' Never mind that he earns more money than 97 percent of all Americans. Congressman Heineman then builds on this delusional world view, to tell us that someone earning $750,000 a year is simply middle class. Never mind that they earn more than 99 percent of all Americans. I suppose in Congressman Heineman's fiscal fantasy land, slashing Medicare, cutting student loans, and kicking the elderly out of nursing homes--all to pay for tax cuts for people earning hundreds of thousands of dollars per year--is a true blue middle class agenda. But if you live in the real world, it's just plain wrong. The Republicans just don't get it. If they would step out and talk to hard- working, struggling families every once in a while, they'd understand why their views are so radical and extreme. And then maybe they'd learn that for the vast majority of Americans, the Republican budget is more than unfair--it's more than a bunch of silly mistakes and assumptions--it's an absolute outrage. And in the name of common decency, it deserves to be denounced and defeated.

Mr. GEPHARDT

Mr. GEPHARDT. I yield to the gentleman from Michigan. (Mr. DINGELL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. GEPHARDT. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to urge my colleagues to support this bill--to move the American Embassy in Israel to Jerusalem, which is the real and proper capital of Israel. Tomorrow, in this very building, many of us will join with prime Minister Rabin to celebrate the 3,000th anniversary of the founding of Jerusalem. I can't think of a better anniversary gift than to move past the rhetoric and the nonbinding resolutions, and finally acknowledge the city that the people of Israel chose as their own capital nearly five decades ago. To me, Jerusalem embodies the very notions of liberty justice and freedom from persecution upon which Israel was founded. That is why we must follow the example of the other body, which passed this bill by an overwhelming, bipartisan margin this morning. Of course, we must all be concerned about the delicate peace process in the Middle East, above all else. That is why this bill is designed to move the American Embassy to Jerusalem in 1999, when the peace process is expected to be completed. But if, for some unforseen reason, moving the embassy at that time would damage the peace process, this bill gives the President the authority to delay the move. The Speaker and I, along with many other strong supporters of Israel, felt it was important to include that condition, because a lasting peace in the Middle East must take precedence over all other goals and concerns. Barring that kind of unforeseen development, we can allow no further delay or excuses. It is only fitting that the holiest city in the world be acknowledged as the official center of the Jewish people, who have strived for so long to express their faith freely and openly. Let's pass this bill, and affirm what the Jewish people have know for 3,000 years--that Jerusalem is their capital, not just spiritually, but politically as well.

Mr. GEPHARDT

Mr. GEPHARDT. Mr. Speaker, the action that is being proposed today, and the action that is being proposed next week in Medicaid, together are really the beginning steps of dismantling these programs as we have known them. Mr. Speaker, when these programs were born, they were born on a simple premise that there would be a national standard of benefits that everyone in these programs would enjoy. With these changes that are being called for in Medicare today, and Medicaid next week, that premise is being taken away. In Medicare, the so-called new ideas on the other side mean that people can choose medical savings accounts, and if they decide that they are going to be well for the rest of their life, they can have money put into that account and have a high-deductible account. Mr. Speaker, there are many other choices. The problem is the choices are for a different standard of benefits. Then, Mr. Speaker, in Medicaid we are going to have a competition now in the State legislatures. The elderly are going to be there pleading for their cause. The children of our country are going to be there pleading for their cause, and the disabled Americans who now claim 15 percent of Medicaid will be there pleading for their cause. Mr. Speaker, is this the kind of competition that we want to have go on around this country? These programs have worked because we have gotten everybody on a level playing field and the competition is not between the companies that can find the well people as opposed to the sick people. The competition should be between those competitors who can most efficiently organize the resources of our medical system. In the name of human decency, vote for this motion to recommit and vote against this bill which is wrong for America and wrong for the American people.

Mr. GEPHARDT. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Texas [Mr. DeLay].

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

Mr. GEPHARDT. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Lewis].

Mr. GEPHARDT. Mr. Speaker, I would like to say to Members this motion is very simple. It knocks out the part B premium increases that our senior citizens will face if this measure passes. I think it is the least we can do before this measure passes. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Markey].

Mr. GEPHARDT. I am opposed to the bill in its present form, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. GEPHARDT. Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to recommit.

Mr. GEPHARDT

Mr. GEPHARDT. Mr. Chairman, I want to first congratulate the ranking member of the Committee on Ways and Means and of the Committee on Commerce and their colleagues on the committees for the great work that they have done in working on this issue. But I rise today with sadness and almost disbelief of what I am afraid is about to happen to what I believe to be the most important program, the most important help that the people of our country have enjoyed now for over 30 years. I say to the Members that this is the kind of vote that comes once in a generation, maybe once in a career, about the very future of one of the most important efforts that our country has ever made. Mr. Chairman, the cuts, the changes, the modifications that are called for in Medicare, and Medicaid next week, are the largest changes in these great health care programs that have ever been called for, by far. If they were being made because they were necessary to balance the budget, that would be one thing; if they were being made to save Medicare, that would be another thing; but, in my opinion, if we look at these changes and then we look at the amounts of money that are projected to be saved and then we look at the tax break, which is included in the very same budget, no matter how people may try to separate the issues, we will see that the reason for these deep, severe, damaging cuts in Medicare are to pay for a tax break for the wealthiest Americans. Mr. Chairman, I would ask us to just imagine, just think in our minds of two individuals, two families, if you will. Think first of a frail 85-year-old woman, who, undoubtedly, lives in your district, and I know lives in mine. Think of an 85-year-old who today lives on their Social Security, maybe $7,000, $8,000, $9,000 a year. That is all the income they have. My colleagues on the other side may not think that $45 a month is a big deal out of their Social Security check to pay the increased premium, but to them, they are already counting every penny, every month, in order to get by. Mr. Chairman, I have met seniors who have a $3,000 prescription drug bill now that comes out of that $9,000 a year. They are counting every penny every month. The change that is being called for here will ask them to pay $40 or $45 additional a month that will come out of their Social Security check. Tell them that this is not a big deal. It would be one thing if that were to balance the budget or to save Medicare. But think about the other person. The family making $500,000 a year that, for the Republican tax break, will get over $19,000 a year in the tax break. It is wrong by anybody's light to take $400 a year from somebody who is 85 and frail and living on 9 grand a year and give it to somebody who is making a half a million dollars a year. That is precisely what this budget is calling for. Mr. Chairman, that is not all. When we make cuts this deep in Medicare and Medicaid, we close 25 percent of the health facilities in this country. The ones that will be closed are the ones we can least afford to close; the ones in the inner city, the ones in the rural areas where people already have a lack of health care facilities. Yes, medical education will be affected. Medicare and Medicaid now pay over 60 percent of the costs of medical education. In an intensely competitive world, private health insurance will pay less and less and less of medical education. So, the Government is the only entity that will do this. Mr. Chairman, I have told this story many times. My son was diagnosed with terminal cancer in 1972 at the age of 2. We were devastated. The next morning, a young resident showed up bright-eyed and bushy-tailed at 7 o'clock in the morning. He met my wife and I, and he said: I know you are devastated, but I stayed up half the night on the computer and I found a therapy that I think might, do not get your hopes up, but it might save his life. We are going to try. Let me tell my colleagues something. That day we needed that doctor and we needed those ideas. We needed good medical education. We needed the quality of this health care system. And I am telling my colleagues today, if these cuts are made this deeply, the medical education that has been the bright light of this health care system through our entire lives will be ripped apart. Mr. Chairman, I say to the ladies and the gentleman of the House, this vote is a vote of conscience. It is a vote of values. It is a vote of what is right and wrong. And I ask my colleagues before they deliver this vote today, to examine their consequences, because if we do what is wrong instead of what is right, in the days ahead every time you face a senior citizen who is trying to scrape it out on $8,000 or $9,000 a year, my colleagues are going to know that they voted to make life harder for them. Every time my colleagues pass a health clinic or a rural hospital that has been closed, they are going to turn their back on that. And every time they meet somebody's family who had somebody who died because of the lack of medical education, they will know we did the wrong thing. Mr. Chairman, I say to my colleagues, do the right thing today and refuse to go along with this program which is not being done for the right reasons, but for the wrong.

Mr. GEPHARDT

Mr. GEPHARDT. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to urge my colleagues to strike down the so-called Teamwork Act which in my view would deal a devastating blow to the working people of this country, and bring us back to a time when workers could be legally and openly exploited for the sake of a few corporate dimes, My colleagues, even if the 104th Congress were to adjourn on this very day, without another vote, I believe this Congress would be remembered as the most antiworker Congress in the history of this country. The fact is, at a time of declining wages and eroding job security, not only are the Republicans of this Congress failing to address the problem--they are actually making it worse. They want to shred every last worker and workplace protection and on the alter of trickle-down tax cuts--lavishing more on those who already have the most, and taking it out of the hides of working families. Why else would they oppose even a small increase in the minimum wage that is designed to make work pay more than welfare? Why would we gut basic workplace safety laws that have protected tens of millions of workers from dangerous and even life-threatening abuse? Why else would they cut back on enforcement of crucial wage and hour laws, which prevent hard-working people from being exploited on the job? It does not take an economist to know that these cuts are regressive and wrong. Just consider this fact: Corporate profits in the last 3 years have grown faster and larger than probably at any time in our history, and at the very same time wages have been falling by a greater rate than at any time in the last century. But this Republican Congress is not satisfied. They want to pass this so-called Teamwork Act which allows the kind of employer- dominated company unions that deny workers the freedom to represent their own interest fairly and independently. Mr. Chairman, this bill would let employers and managers at nonunionized companies dictate the terms of all labor-management discussion and negotiations, even though we outlawed that kind of dictatorship 60 years ago because it led to rampant employee abuse and exploitation. If this bill passes, tens of millions of Americans will be forced to abandon the basic rights and protection of real collective bargaining, and herded into these sham unions. In effect, they will surrender all power and independence to their employers, whether they want to do it or not. The result would be a damaging downward spiral, and the kind of America we read about earlier in the century in Upton Sinclair's ``The Jungle'': even more of the kinds of workplace atrocities and sweatshop standards that we have strived to eliminate for nearly a century. The Republicans will tell us that we need this legislation to get workers and managers to cooperate. But the fact is, hundreds of leading corporations, unionized or not, are models of cooperation already. We do not need this to get cooperation, and how can there be cooperation if one side has all the power, all the prerogatives, and all the authority? Does anyone really believe that multinational corporations do not have enough power now? Or that workers' interests do not need to be defended or protected? This bill should not be called the Teamwork Act, it should be called the Unfair Play Act. If it was not clear already, it should be painfully clear today: the Republican agenda is an extreme agenda--a partisan package of perks for the few and punishment for the many. I say to my colleagues, if you're a corporate giant or a millionaire stock speculator, then you're in luck. But if you're a hard-working American family who's struggling to survive, then these kinds of actions are an absolute nightmare. Let us stop this wrong-headed bill, and let us get back to preserving our basic commitment to the hard-working families of this country. They are the backbone of this country, they made this country great, and it is time to stand with them and fight for them rather than trying to erode the hard-earned rights that they have worked for all these years. I urge my colleagues to defeat this bill.

Mr. GEPHARDT

Mr. GEPHARDT. Mr. Speaker, I rise before my colleagues today to pay tribute to Dr. Abraham M. Phillips, a pediatric specialist in juvenile diabetes in the St. Louis community. Dr. Phillips is a colonel in the U.S. Army Reserve and a commander of the 21st General Hospital in St. Louis. Dr. Phillips' career is a remarkable story of dedication and service to his community and his country. After being commissioned to service in 1971, he moved quickly through military ranks and was appointed colonel in 1987. He has held various non-active duty hospital assignments in the St. Louis area and was assigned to active duty in Kuwait and Saudi Arabia during the Persian Gulf war. After more than 24 years of service in the military, Dr. Phillips has been decorated with more than 18 medals and awards in recognition of his outstanding military service. In his role as a civilian physician, Dr. Phillips' service and scope of work to the medical community are equally impressive. He serves as the medical advisor to a local high school football team, is the consulting physician to a diabetic camp for children in Missouri, and recently concluded work for the Nursery and Newborn Clinic Service at Deaconess Hospital in St. Louis. In addition, Dr. Phillips serves on the Pediatric Quality Assurance Committee at John's Mercy Hospital and on the Pre-Natal and Pediatric Care Committee at Deaconess Hospital, both of which are located in St. Louis. Dr. Phillips' work illustrates the importance of military reservists in our country, and their invaluable contributions to our society. He has unselfishly given his time and talents to our community. His devotion to our community and to our country should be an inspiration to us all.

Mr. GEPHARDT

Mr. GEPHARDT. Mr. Chairman, I rise to express my support for the general thrust of H.R. 927. This legislation sends an important signal to the Castro regime in Cuba that the United States will continue its vigilance in opposing the communist dictatorship there. For this reason, I will support passage of this bill today. At the same time, however, there are a number of provisions in this legislation that I believe could have an unintended negative impact on our efforts to promote a transition to a democratic government in Cuba and impede the conduct of U.S. foreign policy elsewhere. In particular, I have serious concerns about the bill's attempt to restrict United States assistance to international financial institutions and other nations based on their policies toward Cuba. I believe we have broader interests vis-a-vis these institutions and nations that should not be allowed to be dictated by our policy toward Cuba. I am also concerned that the constraints imposed by the bill on the types of United States assistance that may be provided to a transitional or democratically elected government in Cuba may in fact hinder our ability to promote the changes we desire there. In addition, it appears that some of the bill's provisions relating to property claims may have the unintended consequence of tying up considerable amounts of property in litigation for years after a transition to a democratic government has occurred. This could hinder investment by Americans desiring to promote economic development in a post-Castro Cuba. For these reasons, my vote today in support of H.R. 927 does not indicate an intention to support the conference version of this bill. Rather, I will withhold my decision on support for final passage of this legislation pending action by the conferees to address the deficiencies contained in the House version of the bill.