Dick Gephardt

Mr. GEPHARDT

Mr. GEPHARDT. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 975, a bill which is designed to reduce the flood of steel imports coming into the United States, and I would like to commend the work of especially the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Visclosky) for all the hard work that he has done in bringing this measure to the floor today. Today, the House has the opportunity to send a strong message of support for American steel company workers and steel communities across this country. Mr. Speaker, more than 10,000 high-wage and high-skill Americans in the steel industry have lost their jobs since the onslaught of foreign imported steel began about 2 years ago. H.R. 975 will grant real tangible relief for this industry that is vital to our industrial base and indeed, our national security. It will also aid the efforts of steel workers and companies to bring about stronger action to help the United States steel industry. Mr. Speaker, an economic collapse has swept the globe, first striking in Asia, but now impacting Latin America and other developing countries as well. During the debate over IMF emergency funding to stabilize these economies, I warned that import surges would result from the Asian economic crisis and that a plan would be needed to combat the unfair imports. Unfortunately, no such plan has been forthcoming. Between 1997 and 1998, steel imports have risen nearly 100 percent from key countries like Japan and Korea. Thus far, 10,000 jobs have been lost, but thousands more jobs are threatened as an oversupply of foreign-made steel sits on our docks. Our steel industry is the most productive industry in the world. The U.S. should not be forced to unilaterally take in a massive global import surge. While the Clinton administration has taken some much-needed steps by expediting relief to the steel industry via traditional U.S. trade laws, I am concerned that the administration has not done enough to promote a global solution to this problem. I believe this bill can help us find that solution. The bill we are debating today simply limits imports to pre-crisis levels. It promotes a fair and level trading system for the United States steel industry by putting an end to the practice of foreign producers flooding our market with cheap steel that puts our industry and its workers in jeopardy. Mr. Speaker, I look forward to continuing our ongoing efforts with the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Visclosky), the Steel Caucus, the Clinton administration, and all interested parties to develop a strong and realistic global solution to this crisis. Today's floor debate reminds us of the magnitude of the crisis in the steel country, and the passage of this bill will hopefully bring about the action which is needed to help reverse this economic calamity for thousands of workers and their families.

Mr. GEPHARDT

Mr. GEPHARDT. Mr. Speaker, I have always believed that Congress should be involved in decisions by our government to send our armed services into harm's way. I really believe it is best to first commit the people and then commit the troops. However, I object strongly to the timing of this debate. We should not be debating this matter while our diplomats at this very moment are seeking to convince the parties to this conflict to lay down their weapons and choose the path of peace. To conduct a divisive debate in Congress and perhaps fail to support our government's efforts is the height of irresponsibility, and threatens the hope for an agreement to halt the bloodshed and prevent the widening of this war. We all know that we are at a very delicate moment in the Kosovo peace negotiations. In part due to the efforts of former Senate Majority Leader Bob Dole, the Kosovar Albanians are reportedly ready to sign an agreement, and our diplomats are right now continuing convince Yugoslavia President Milosevic to agree, as well. If we reject this legislation, the Kosovars may refuse to sign an agreement out of fear that U.S. leadership is wavering, and clearly, Milosevic will be emboldened to continue his rejection of a NATO force as part of any agreement. Either outcome will only lead to more violence, more bloodshed, which has engulfed this region over the past years. This should not be about politics. It should not be about giving the administration a black eye. This is about ending a humanitarian catastrophe and preventing the slaughter of thousands of innocent people caught in a simmering ethnic conflict. Lives are at stake here. Our actions today may determine whether the people of Kosovo have a chance for a peaceful future, or simply resume the killing that could destabilize the region and threaten United States interests. I thought until recently that the Republican leadership shared this view, and grieve that partisanship has no place in this debate. When asked a few weeks ago about a House vote on Kosovo, the Speaker stated publicly, I think we need to make sure that the administration has the room to negotiate and get the job done in Rambouillet first. The fact that we are here today demonstrates that Republican leaders have chosen partisan politics over a united American effort to end the conflict. It seems that politics has infected foreign policy, and I think, if that has happened, with great harm to our credibility overseas. Others will talk about the importance of U.S. leadership in the Balkans and Kosovo's significance for the future of NATO. I will simply reiterate to the Members what Bob Dole said yesterday in the Committee on International Relations. When asked about the timing of the vote, Senator Dole said, ``I would rather have the vote come after the agreement between the Kosovar Albanians and Serbia.'' When asked how Members should vote if this resolution is not postponed, Senator Dole said, we hope there will be strong bipartisan support. It is in our national interest to do this. I regret that the leadership in Congress has forgotten our history and our background, and the importance of standing united as we attempt to resolve yet another international conflict. I urge all Members, Republican and Democratic alike, to vote against this rule, and defer this action that very well may provoke further bloodshed in the Balkans. We can have this vote if there is a treaty. We can have this vote once there has been some kind of pulling together of a policy that we can look at and evaluate. This vote today is premature. It is wrong to have it today. The Members have it within their ability to put this vote off. I urge Members to vote against the previous question, vote against the rule, and let us bring up this vote when it is timely and appropriate.

Mr. GEPHARDT

Mr. GEPHARDT. Mr. Speaker and Members of the House, before I hand the gavel over to our new Speaker, let me say to him simply, let us bury the hatchet. First, I want to say to the new Speaker that Jane Gephardt and I would like to invite him and his wife, Jean, to our congressional district in Missouri, and I hope that in the days ahead Jane and I can come to your congressional district in Illinois. The only problem that I have with this new Speaker is that as I understand it, he is a Chicago Cubs fan, and all of my colleagues know that I am a St. Louis Cardinals fan. He tells me his wife is a St. Louis, Cardinals fan, which gives me real hope. But if Sammy Sosa and Mark McGwire can figure it out, so can we. Now, Mr. Speaker, you know that over the next 2 years I am going to work hard to win a majority back for Democratic values and ideas. But I want to shift the focus today away from politics to other ideas, to other efforts that we can make together to do us all proud. Let us put to rest finally the poisonous politics that has infected this place. Let us join together not only in words, but in deeds, to do right by the people, to live up to our oaths, and to move our nation forward into a new century of prosperity. This is hallowed ground. This is a precious place where we have nurtured and protected for generations our democracy. We have a burden, all of us, and we have a responsibility to live up to those who have gone before us, and today and in the future, to reach toward the sky and to listen to our better angels. It is in this spirit that I am proud to hand the gavel to the new Speaker of the House, to our new Speaker of the House, the gentleman from Illinois, Dennis Hastert.

Mr. GEPHARDT

Mr. GEPHARDT. Mr. Speaker, I stood on this floor yesterday and implored all of us to say that the politics of slash and burn must end. I implored all of us that we must turn away from the politics of personal destruction and return to the politics of values. It is with that same passion that I say to all of you today that the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Bob Livingston) is a worthy and good and honorable man. I believe his decision to retire is a terrible capitulation to the negative forces that are consuming our political system and our country, and I pray with all my heart that he will reconsider this decision. Our Founding Fathers created a system of government of men, not of angels. No one standing in this House today can pass the puritanical test of purity that some are demanding that our elected leaders take. If we demand that mere mortals live up to this standard, we will see our seats of government lay empty and we will see the best, most able people unfairly cast out of public service. We need to stop destroying imperfect people at the altar of an unobtainable morality. We need to start living up to the standards which the public in its infinite wisdom understands, that imperfect people must strive towards, but too often fall short. We are now rapidly descending into a politics where life imitates farce, fratricide dominates our public debate, and America is held hostage to tactics of smear and fear. Let all of us here today say no to resignation, no to impeachment, no to hatred, no to intolerance of each other, and no to vicious self- righteousness. We need to start healing. We need to start binding up our wounds. We need to end this downward spiral which will culminate in the death of representative democracy. I believe this healing can start today by changing the course we have begun. This is exactly why we need this today to be bipartisan. This is why we ask the opportunity to vote on a bipartisan censure resolution, to begin the process of healing our Nation and healing our people. We are on the brink of the abyss. The only way we stop this insanity is through the force of our own will. The only way we stop this spiral is for all of us to finally say ``enough.'' Let us step back from the abyss and let us begin a new politics of respect and fairness and decency, which realizes what has come before. May God have mercy on this Congress, and may Congress have the wisdom and the courage and the goodness to save itself today.

Mr. GEPHARDT. Mr. Speaker, with all due respect, I must appeal the ruling of the Chair.

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

Mr. GEPHARDT

Mr. GEPHARDT. Mr. Speaker, this vote today is taking place on the wrong day, and we are doing it in the wrong way. I am disappointed and I am saddened by the actions of the majority, in both the timing and in the method that we are considering the most important act that the Constitution asks us to perform. The actions of the majority, in my view, show a lack of common sense and decency, and is not befitting of our beloved House. As I said yesterday, when our young soldiers, men and women, are in harm's way, we should not be debating and considering and talking about removing our Commander in Chief. If we believed that this would go on for days and days, I could understand the decision to go forward today. I do not believe it will go on for days and days, and I believe that we send the wrong message to Saddam Hussein, to the British, to the Chinese and to the Russians, to be on the floor of this House today, when we could be here Sunday or Monday or Tuesday. I guess I am worried also that some of us do not want to be inconvenienced. Our young people are inconvenienced today who are in the Persian Gulf. They are being shot at, and they stand in danger, and with all my heart I believe the least we could do is postpone this debate to a different day. But I know I have lost that debate and the decision has been made. We are here. Let me address the way this is being done. But before I do that, I want to say something else. The events of the last days sadden me. We are now at the height of a cycle of the politics of negative attacks, character assassination, personal smears, of good people, decent people, worthy people. It is no wonder to me and to you that the people of our country today are cynical and indifferent and apathetic about our government and about our country. The politics of smear and slash and burn must end. This House and this country must be based on certain basic values: Respect, trust, fairness, forgiveness. We can take an important step today back to the politics of respect and trust and fairness and forgiveness. Let me talk about the way we are doing this and how that can be that first step. We have articles of impeachment on the floor of this House. This is the most radical act that is called for in our Constitution. In this debate, we are being denied a vote as an alternative to impeachment for censure and condemnation of our President for the wrongful acts that we believe have been performed. We all say that this is a vote of conscience. You get to vote your vote of conscience, and I respect that right. All we are asking for is that we get to vote our conscience. And it is not just our conscience, it is the conscience of millions of Americans who share this view. I know what you say. You say that the Constitution does not allow this vote of censure. Constitutional scholars in the hundreds, some of the most respected, conservative constitutional scholars have opined in the days before, in the committee and through articles and through speeches, that, in their view, the Constitution does allow this vote; that the Constitution is silent on this question of what else we can do; that the Constitution in no way prevents us from doing this. What do I conclude? I can only conclude that you do not want our Members to have this choice. I can only conclude that some are afraid of this vote. I can only conclude that this may be about winning a vote, not about high-minded ideals. Let me, if I can, go back to the values: Respect, fairness, trust, forgiveness. We need to begin in the way we do this to practice a different kind of politics. We need to stand today as a unified body, Republicans and Democrats, liberals, moderates, conservatives, rejecting raw, naked partisanship, and putting in its place a politics of trust and respect and decency, and values. We need to turn away from extremism and inquisition and return to a sense of moderation in our political system. We are considering articles of impeachment that allege an abuse of power. We have an obligation not to abuse our power. We need to turn back. We have another chance. The chance is still there, before our Nation and our democracy have become unalterably and permanently degraded and lowered. The great Judge Learned Hand once said that no court can save a society so riven that the spirit of moderation is gone. Today, I believe the majority is pursuing a path of immoderation, disregarding even a consideration of the wishes of a vast majority of the American people regarding penalizing this President with censure and not impeachment. In the Book of Isaiah in the Bible it was said, ``Judgment is turned away backward and justice stands far off.'' I ask the majority one last time to reconsider what you are doing. We are deeply offended, in all sincerity, from my heart; we are deeply offended by the unfairness of this process. You are asking us to consider the most important act the Constitution calls on us to do. We are considering overturning the free choice and vote of over almost 50 million Americans. We are considering the most radical act our Constitution allows. We are considering changing the balance of power and the proportionality of the branches of our government. You are doing this in a way that denies millions of Americans the trust and respect for our views that we afford to you, and that we feel we deserve in our Constitution guarantees. In your effort to uphold the Constitution, you are trampling the Constitution. In Lincoln's Gettysburg Address he prayed this prayer, that this Nation shall have a new birth of freedom, and that this government of the people, by the people, for the people should not perish from this earth. I pray today that you will open up this people's house and let the people's voice come in and let fairness reign. Thank you.

Mr. GEPHARDT

Mr. GEPHARDT. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the resolution that is before us and think it is the right thing for us to do on this important day. I fully support the mission of our armed forces currently carrying out this military action in Iraq. These efforts are part of a long-standing bipartisan effort to degrade the Iraqi government's capacity to develop and deliver weapons of mass destruction and to diminish its ability to threaten its neighbors in the region. Over the last 8 years Presidents Bush and Clinton have pursued a policy to contain the threat that Saddam Hussein poses to the region, the Mideast region and the international community. Today our troops bravely are continuing this effort. I believe that this Congress must give them and is required to give them our undivided support and encouragement. The U.S. action is the latest chapter in our efforts. It came at the end of a long pattern of Iraqi games to thwart the work of weapons inspectors and frustrate implementation of United Nations Security Council resolutions. The most recent act of defiance was in October. The United States was ready at that time to use military force with the support of the international community, including eight Arab nations, and the unanimous support of the United Nations Security Council to enforce implementation of these U.N. resolutions. Saddam Hussein in October backed down under these threats, and he pledged and his regime pledged to resume cooperation unconditionally with the weapons inspectors. At that time our President made clear that if Saddam Hussein failed to cooperate fully, without equivocation, the United States would be prepared to act, and to act without delay, to act without going back to the Security Council, to act without coming anywhere to get authority to do it. The President then said, and I quote, ``Until we see complete compliance, we will remain vigilant, we will keep up the pressure, we will be ready to act.'' As Members all know over the past 3 weeks, Saddam Hussein has engaged in new acts of defiance of the United Nations Security Council resolutions and the weapons inspectors known as UNSCOM. These acts are a clear violation of the international community's determination to ensure that Iraq no longer poses a threat to the region. The timetable for action was perfectly clear. We have known that Richard Butler would submit the report for several weeks. This is no surprise to anyone in Iraq, in the region, across the world who is involved in these foreign policy issues. Congressional leaders were briefed by the President's national security team on the evolving situation and the military options which were being considered in response. Any suggestion that this action has been affected by the impeachment debate one way or the other is blatantly false. I sincerely hope that we can temporarily put aside partisanship and direct our efforts to fully supporting our troops, our young people, in this critical mission. We should never let Saddam Hussein dictate the nature or the timing of our response. We must have the ability to carry out our mission effectively to ensure that Iraq cannot reconstitute its arsenal of weapons of mass destruction, and most importantly we must give our commanders in the field the flexibility they need to succeed in their mission with the least risk to the men and women who are putting their lives on the line right now to achieve these goals. This Congress must stand firmly and in a united way behind the defense of our national interest. We must send a strong message, the strongest possible message to Saddam Hussein that domestic politics will never, ever affect our resolve, and we must send a clear and unequivocal message to the brave young men and women of the United States armed forces that they have our unqualified support as they undertake this serious and dangerous mission. We must join together today as Republicans, as Democrats, as independents, but as Americans. We must speak with one voice, one crystal clear voice behind our men and women, behind our President and behind our Nation at this time of critical emergency. If my son or daughter were in the field today, right now, I would want nothing more than every American to stand behind and be proud of their effort on our behalf. By voting for this resolution, we do that today.

Mr. GEPHARDT

Mr. GEPHARDT. Mr. Speaker, first, the minority respects the right of the majority to decide the agenda and decide when we will vote on important matters like the one that is to be before us tomorrow. The minority also wants debate and wants as much debate as we can have so that Members can express their views on this very important subject. The minority also wants this to be completed this year if at all possible. We have said that over and over again. I agree with those views. But I must say that we strongly object to this matter coming up tomorrow or the next day or any day in which our young men and women in the military are in harm's way protecting the interests of the people of the United States. I would simply say the reason we believe that and we believe it strongly is that we think, we must think, not only of how this activity will be received by Members or other Americans around the country, we believe we have got to also look at how Saddam Hussein will perceive the idea and the information that, while he is under physical attack by the United States and its people, we are having a debate in our House of Representatives to remove the Commander in Chief from his office. I do not think we can assume that Saddam Hussein understands all the nuances and all the facts surrounding this debate and this activity. We also have to ask how this will be received by the Russians, how it will be received by the British, how it will be received by the French, the Chinese, and people all across this world, that we are seeking to ally ourselves with or to at least get their understanding and their help and their cooperation as we go through this very difficult activity.

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

Mr. GEPHARDT. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I would sum up; and I know we have one or two other speakers who want to speak. Let me just put it this way: We have had a lot of partisan rancor in the years past, and that always is part of a political body like this. But I want to say to my friends in the Republican Party in the majority, I feel very strongly that this is a high moment for the House of Representatives. I feel strongly that we must perform at a high level. I hope we can. I also hope that there is not partisan rancor in this debate on impeachment, because we have a high duty and responsibility to carry forward. I hope and pray that we could have this debate when it will not be misperceived by Saddam Hussein or by somebody else in the world that we have to depend upon. I ask the majority to reconsider its decision, its legitimate decision to hold this debate while our troops are in the field. I know that Members may feel that there is inconvenience in waiting here until this military action is finished tomorrow or the next day or the day after that. I would like us all to think of the inconvenience that our young people are undergoing, the danger that they face, and how they will see this action and perhaps misperceive what is happening in their House of Representatives. I want them to see nothing from us but support and unity of purpose at this time of danger in their lives. Mr. KENNEDY OF Rhode Island. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. GEPHARDT. I yield to the gentleman from Rhode Island.

Mr. GEPHARDT. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Armey), the majority leader.

Mr. GEPHARDT. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Bonior).

Mr. GEPHARDT. Mr. Speaker, if I can reclaim my time and conclude, I would simply ask again in an earnest way, in a heartfelt way, that the majority would consider what we have said about doing this debate and taking this under consideration while our young men and women are in harm's way and also consider the wisdom of denying an alternative motion of censure when this debate takes place. We feel that both of these requests are reasonable and make common sense, and we make them with respect, and we make them with heartfelt feeling among most of the Members on this side. We appreciate the opportunity to communicate this with the majority. We feel this is a moment of great responsibility for the House of Representatives. We want nothing more than all of the House and all of its Members to bring praise on ourselves as an institution, that we carry out these grave responsibilities in the best possible way for the American people.

Mr. GEPHARDT

Mr. GEPHARDT. Mr. Speaker, Ronald Reagan stood in this Chamber nearly a decade ago and attacked the Congress for sending him a massive last- minute appropriation bill. Well, here we go again. This bill is 4,000 pages long and weighs over 40 pounds. And at that time Ronald Reagan said, Congress should not send another one of these and, if you do, he said, I will not sign it. Well, here they go again. This bill is a symbol of the wasted time and misguided priorities of a Republican Congress whose leadership consumed our agenda with investigations instead of legislation. Thanks to the Republican leadership, we have worked the fewest days and passed the fewest bills in decades. We did not even pass a budget resolution in this House of Representatives, the first time since the Budget Act passed 24 years ago. For the last year Republicans in Congress have tried to focus the debate on anything except what is really significant to our future. They have had far more enthusiasm for subpoenas than for schools, and they would rather talk about the FBI than the IMF. We were able to convince a reluctant and unwilling Republican majority to include funding for 100,000 new teachers in this bill, teachers that will help reduce class size and improve the quality of our children's education. While Democrats may not be satisfied with what was not included in this bill today, we will come back and fight again and again for a Patients' Bill of Rights, anti-teen smoking initiatives and an increase in the minimum wage. And a Democratic majority will hopefully enact the reforms to guarantee the future of Social Security and save the surplus for Social Security, which the Republican majority tried to spend before it could be saved, to save that program. Ronald Reagan was right. It was a bad way to do business in 1988, and it is a bad way to do business in 1998. Mr. Speaker, it is time for a change. It is time for a Congress that works full time to help meet the challenges of our future instead of skipping town with unfilled promises and unmet priorities, and one that fulfills its constitutional role to produce a budget in a manner befitting of us all. If we want to change the agenda, it should be very clear. We have to change the leadership of this Congress. I believe the American people will do that, and I hope for the sake of the people they do.

Mr. GEPHARDT

Mr. GEPHARDT. Mr. Speaker, first I want to express all of our deep feeling of sympathy for the family of Matthew Shepard and for the friends and all the people that knew Matthew Shepard personally. He was taken from his family by a heinous act, an evil act, an outrageous act of violence. I join with my colleagues in offering our condolences and our prayers to his family and his friends. This awful crime shocks an entire Nation, and it shocks our consciences. It reminds us that we have a long, long, long way to go before all Americans can feel safe from this kind of heinous attack. Matthew was a promising young man who happened to be gay. He was killed because of a chance encounter with a random act of hatred and violence. But it is important to remember that no one in our society is safe from this kind of random act as long as the impulse of intolerance lives among our fellow Americans. Any one of our sons or daughters could have come in contact with the perpetrators on that grim night. Any of us could be in the place of Matthew's parents. I have a son by the name of Matthew. He is about 27 years old now. I cannot imagine, if I put myself into the shoes of this young man's parents, I cannot imagine the outrage, the desire for retribution that I would feel today. I cannot imagine their grief and their sorrow. So we stand here today knowing that no gesture will return this young man to earth. Resolutions are no match for harsh punishment for these crimes. It is vitally important for Congress to speak with one voice on this issue as we do today, to condemn the manifestation of hatred in our society against any one of us and to say clearly that we reject prejudice and intolerance wherever and whenever it rears its ugly head. All Americans join together today as one in sending our deep and prayerful feelings to these parents. May this never happen again and may the meaning of his life be that we pass a hate crimes act in this Congress before we leave so that we say to all, there is punishment for this kind of hatred.

Mr. GEPHARDT

Mr. GEPHARDT. Mr. Speaker, it is almost a month to the day that we stood here and debated whether or not to release the materials that Ken Starr had sent to the Congress, and I tried to say at that time that this was a time of utmost importance, to us as a House of Representatives and to all of us as a people. I said then and I repeat today that we are engaged now in what I believe to be a sacred process. We are considering whether or not to ultimately, if we get that far, overturn an election voted on by millions of Americans to decide who should be the chief executive officer of this country. The last time we did this, Barbara Jordan, who I think really became the conscience of the period, said this, she said, ``Common sense would be revolted if we engaged upon this process for petty reasons.'' Congress has a lot to do. Pettiness cannot be allowed to stand in the face of such overwhelming problems. She said, ``So today we are not being petty. We are trying to be big, because the task before us is big.'' I said the other day that this is a time to be bigger than we really are. We are all human. We all make mistakes. We all give in to pettiness and pride. We all give in to doing things wrong, for the wrong reasons. But this is a time when our Constitution and our people asked each of us to reach inside of ourselves, to be bigger and better than we really are. In my view, we should not have two resolutions, or a resolution and an amendment out here today. I believe if we had succeeded in what we should be doing, we would have one resolution, agreed to by all 435 Members today. The question is not whether to have an inquiry. The question today is what kind of inquiry will this be? Our amendment is simple, and I think it is common sense. First, it says it must be focused. We operate under a statute that we passed from the independent counsel that said there could be referrals from the independent counsel on possible issues of impeachment, and we should take that up, and that is before us. Our resolution says stick with those referrals. We listened to the complaints of the other side and we said, well, maybe there will be more referrals. So we have amended the language and we say if there are more referrals, we will deal with them as we should under the statute. Second, it must be fair. The last time we had Watergate, the committee spent a good deal of time considering the standards and the history of impeachment so that all the members of the committee and on the floor would understand the historic process that we are involved in. None of us do this often. We do not think about this very often, so it is vital and important that we all know what it is we are doing and whether or not the facts that are out there rise as a prima facie case. That has not been done in this case. Third time, we say let us get it over by December 31, before the new Congress comes into session. Why do we say that? We say that because we believe deeply that for the good of the country and the good of our people, this must be done by the end of this year, before there is a new Congress. Why do we say that? We say it because we live in a dangerous world. The world economy is in a shambles. Our own economy is threatened. Issues like education and health care and economics need to be on the front burner of this Congress. That is what we must be working on. If we stay here for 3, 6, 9, 12 months, 2 years in suspended animation while we go over every charge that is out there, we will hurt our country and our people and our children. Now, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde) has said, and I believe him, that we should do this by the end of the year. But he also said New Year's promises sometimes get broken. The gentleman from Illinois has said that we should not be on a fishing expedition, but others in the party, I have heard even leaders in the party, the Republican Party, say, well, we have to look at Travelgate, and we have to look at Filegate, and we have to look at campaign finance, and we have to look at the Chinese rocket sales. And they say it again. I really have thought a lot about this. I have really thought a lot about it. I have tried to think to myself, what is our problem, and I think I have identified it. Our problem is we do not trust one another. The majority says that if they use our language, that we are not going to do what we say we are going to do; that we are going to drag it out; that we are going to try to frustrate the purpose of having this inquiry. And all I say is, we have put our words and our actions to follow that belief. We have said if there are other referrals, we will take them up. We have said that if we get to the end of the year and we need more time, that the majority can come to the floor and more time will be granted. The Republicans run the House. But when we see the majority's resolution, we do not see trust. Because the words that we are looking for; that we are going to try to get this over by the end of the year; that we are going to try to stick with these referrals and not go into everything under the sun and drag it out for 2 years, and it will be a 2-year political fishing expedition, those words are not there. Finally, let me say this. We are all profoundly hurt by what the President has done. He has deeply disappointed the American people and he has let us all down. But this investigation must be ended fairly and quickly. It has hurt our Nation and it has hurt our children. We must not compound the hurt. I have asked every Democratic Member in these last days, I have asked every Member to search their heart and their conscience and to vote for what in their heart and their mind and their conscience they think is right. And I come to the floor today to ask every Republican Member to do the same. This should not be a party vote today. This should be the attempt of every one of us, humble human beings, who come to this majestic place, where we settle our differences peacefully and not with violence, to say that I am voting for what in my heart and my mind is the best for the country and the best for the American people.

Mr. GEPHARDT

Mr. GEPHARDT. Mr. Speaker, rural America is in a crisis. Farmers across this country are struggling to survive natural disasters and commodity prices that are at a two-decade low. Driven down by the economic slide in Asia, farmers are being forced to sell crops at prices that don't even cover production costs. They need our help. When hedge-funds ran into trouble because of the impact of a global economic tidal wave, our government took strong action. We need to take the same kind of immediate steps to shore up the farm economy, which is as important to our economy and our national standard of living as the health and stability of the financial markets. America's farmers have never failed us. But too often we have taken their hard work for granted. America has the best in quantity and quality of food products--produced at low prices and with an efficiency that is a model for the world. Agriculture is vital to the economic success of this country. It is one of our export leaders. But in 1996, when we passed the Republican farm bill, we cut the safety net out from under our farmers. Now, we are reaping the effects of that misguided effort. Thanks to the Republican Freedom to Farm bill, the only freedom farmers still have is the freedom to fail. They face hardship and even ruin because of a financial crisis not of their making and a 1996 Republican farm bill which still makes no sense. For months we having been begging with the majority to listen to farmers--to help farmers. Farm income is projected to drop between $7.5 and $9 billion this year alone. It has been obvious that we needed to take immediate action to save family farmers. But Republicans were too busy doing nothing to respond. It was only a few short weeks ago that the Republican leadership reluctantly acknowledged that farm families can't pay 1990's mortgages on 1970's crop prices. It's too little and too late. We are long past Band-Aid cures. There is only $1.65 billion in economic assistance in this bill when the loss in farm income is five to six times higher. The Republic message to farmers is: Be happy with the crumbs off our table. Farmers put more than crumbs on our table. We owe them the same. We must reject the Republican half-measure and take strong action to shore up prices. We need to lift the caps Republicans put on marketing loans in 1996 so we can raise bushel prices for corn and soybeans more than 30 cents--so we can raise prices on wheat more than 60 cents. And we need to direct aid to producers who have actually suffered losses, instead of using the outdated formula in this bill that will give out assistance based on historic production dating back years. We must do better for the people who have worked so long and labored so hard to feed Americans and the world. They don't ask for more than their due; they only request a stable, decent return on their investment of time and capital. I urge my colleagues to give America's farmers what they have always given us. Give them a decent, fair bill that helps farm families. Vote ``yes'' on the motion to recommit. Vote ``no'' on this conference report.

Mr. GEPHARDT

Mr. GEPHARDT. Mr. Speaker, the decision that we make today is a decision that every American would understand. In our lives, in our families, we all face fundamental decisions. Often those decisions are financial decisions. We have to decide whether or not to have instant gratification and buy something that we would like to have right now, or whether to save funds in our family for retirement or for a rainy day fund or for the future so that we do the responsible thing for our families and our future. It really is the kind of decision that we are making today as a national family. We are deciding whether we want very desirable tax cuts, which the American people want and which we want, or whether we should wait on that decision until we are sure that our pension funds in Social Security are safe and secure and adequate to take care of the baby boomers which will be soon coming and wanting their pension from Social Security. I urge my colleagues to vote for the Democratic substitute that will truly save the surplus for Social Security first. Yesterday Republicans voted against a Democratic proposal to save all of the surplus for the Social Security trust fund. They said, 90 percent is good enough. 100 percent would be better, but 90 percent is good enough. I believe that was a wrong decision. Today they are raiding the surplus with ill-timed tax cuts. Once again they show their disregard for the long-term financial integrity of the most important program to the lives of every American. Our substitute will make sure, certain, positive, that fiscal responsibility is more than empty phrases and empty words. We support cutting taxes. We believe the American people deserve a tax cut. But it is more important to save every penny of the surplus until we find a way to pay for those tax cuts. It is a basic principle: Pay as you go; pay as you go. It says tax cuts funded out of the surplus must wait, must simply wait until Congress shores up the Social Security system so they can pay the benefits that baby boomers have earned by paying payroll taxes into the Social Security trust fund. It says ``yes'' to tax cuts to working families but makes sure that we do not wreck Social Security in the process. Democrats support tax cuts for working families. Speaker Gingrich and Chairman Archer have borrowed from Democratic tax relief proposals in writing this bill. We congratulate them for that. The only problem is that they forgot to include the bipartisan fiscal discipline that we wrote into the budget in their zeal to give the Republican Party a campaign issue in the November elections. This is an election-year tax cut. Unfortunately, their message to the American voter is the election is more important to the Republican Party than saving Social Security for future generations. We refuse to support Republican efforts to spend the Social Security trust funds that working families one day will have to rely on for their retirement, as the foundation of their retirement. The Republicans are taking $80 billion from the surplus and try to say that, ``Well, it's no big deal. It's not that much money.'' The party that refused to cast a single vote to put the Federal budget in surplus for the first time in a generation is now so impressed, in fact so giddy with election-year politics, they have decided to spend surplus money that really should stay in the Social Security trust fund. I think it is irresponsible. The surplus is just an upward line on a bar graph. It shows a unified budget in surplus but a non-Social Security budget projected in deficit for at least the next six years. The truth is we do not have a surplus if we take into account what should be in the Social Security trust fund. I am from Missouri. We have a saying in Missouri: Show me. Show me the trust fund. And what people in America want today is to be shown that we have learned as a national family to be responsible, to do the right thing for them and their future. This is a fundamental decision we have to make today. We are trustees of the most important program for the future of families in this country. I keep hearing Social Security is failed, that it will not be there. When I talk to my young constituents, they say, ``I'm paying this tax, but it's never going to be there.'' What cynicism we bring when we do things like this when we have a chance to regain the confidence of the people that the hard-earned money they put into this trust fund is going to be there. Do not give in to cynicism today and irresponsibility and instant gratification and election-year politics. Do what is right for the future of this country. Let us regain the confidence of our people that we know how to be trustees of this system. Vote for the Democratic substitute, vote for a tax cut when we can afford to do it, and say we have kept faith with Social Security.

Mr. GEPHARDT

Mr. GEPHARDT. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote for the Democratic substitute offered by the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel) that will truly save the surplus for Social Security. I challenge my Republican colleagues to put the money where their mouths are. Join with Democrats in using all of the surplus to save Social Security first. Republicans talk a big game in election years when it comes to protecting Social Security. Listening to their rhetoric today, one would have thought that they were the ones who came up with the idea of Social Security in the first place. They did not. Republicans fought it in the 1930s and they are fighting it again in the 1990s. They want to weaken it by eroding its financial stability. They want to starve Social Security so that it withers on the vine. That is exactly what the Republican bill does. It puts Social Security second. It raises and raids funds from the Social Security trust fund to further their ultimate goal, killing the system that lifts millions of our senior citizens out of poverty. This is the first step in their plan to transform Social Security from a guaranteed fundamental bedrock into a crapshoot in the markets. They are not really committed to saving Social Security. All one has to do is take a look at the Republican bill today to see how weak their commitment to Social Security really is. If you are really committed to something, you stand 100 percent behind it. You do not go halfway in fighting for your bedrock values. You do not go almost all the way. You go all the way. But the Republicans' 90 percent solution does not really protect the crown jewel of our efforts, to make sure that seniors can live in respect and dignity no matter what. Republicans only want to throw Social Security a string instead of a lifeline. And Republicans only want to go the whole eight yards to save Social Security. In baseball, 90 percent of the way only gets you a pop-out on the warning track, not a home run. We want to knock this ball straight out of the park. Democrats are 100 percent committed to Social Security. We are going to dedicate the entire surplus to saving Social Security, not just part of it, not just 90 percent of it. It is important that we stop these Republican raiders in their tracks, because this year they will steal 10 percent of the surplus from Social Security and next year they will come back and try to get more. The gentleman from Texas (Mr. Archer) has said so himself. ``As long as there is a Republican majority,'' he said in a press conference, ``we're going to have a tax cut every year.'' He said, ``We need to take a stand now.'' Well, I think we need to take a stand now and show the American people that we will save all, 100 percent, of the surplus for Social Security. When you have a jewel, you do not keep it on your kitchen table. You lock it up in a safe deposit box. That is exactly what we want to do with the surplus for Social Security. Our substitute puts the money under lock and key, at the Federal Reserve Bank, so that neither Republicans nor Democrats nor anyone will be able to get their hands on it. Let us take the surplus away from the Republicans. Let us shore up the system and show the American people that we can save Social Security first.

Mr. GEPHARDT

Mr. GEPHARDT. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this bill and ask Members on both sides of the aisle to oppose this bill. I have voted for and worked on fast track bills in the past. I worked on a bill with then President Bush that we passed back in the late 1980s. I believe in trade, and I believe in trade agreements. I believe in opening markets. I believe in free trade agreements. This is not a partisan issue. It is an issue on which I think people of like minds have to come together to prepare an architecture so that the free trade treaties that come from the fast track authority will succeed in opening up more trade and, most importantly, in increasing the compatibility between the countries that are engaging in trade. To take NAFTA, for an example, it is a free trade treaty between countries that have very different standards of living, very different attempts at enforcing their basic laws. We now know that the problems that have come from NAFTA have been caused because we did not get in NAFTA the kind of enforcement provisions, with teeth, that would allow all the parties to get the other parties to the agreement to properly enforce their labor and environmental laws. We tried to get that in the treaty and at the end everyone said, ``Well, we can't get it.'' I vowed from that moment that if we had another fast track, and I thought and knew we should and would, that I would try to get in it provisions that would say definitely that any treaty that would come from that fast track would have to have proper provisions in it, with teeth, that would get the labor and environmental and other laws in the signatories to the treaty to properly enforce their laws. Now, why is this important? If you go to Mexico today on the border, you will find the most modern plants in the world. In fact, there are double the number of plants than there were before NAFTA and double the number of jobs. In many ways that is good. That is what we hoped would happen. But if you examine further and you go in the villages where the workers live next to the plants that are modern, as modern as anything in the United States, you will find workers living in abject poverty. They live literally in the cardboard boxes that carry the goods out of the plants. The labor laws in Mexico are better than ours. They are just not enforced. If you speak with the workers and you ask why do you not join an independent union or why do you not bargain for better wages, they laugh at you. And they say, ``We have no ability to do that.'' They live next to open sewage ditches. Their children have hepatitis. Half the children cannot go to school because the workers do not earn enough money to send their children to school. If this is the future of free trade in the world economy, then we have no future. If it is a race to the bottom because we do not insist on standards in trade, then we have let down everybody in the United States and we have let down everybody in the world. Surely we can do better than this. I believe if we work from this day forward, because I do not think this fast track will pass, we can work to a bipartisan fast track that will give the President the fast track authority that he wants, that has the proper conditions in it so we can construct the right architecture in the world so that free trade is also fair trade, it is trade with standards, it is trade that raises the standards in the world and not lowering everybody's standards to the lowest common denominator. Now, surely we can do this. The fast track we have tonight not only does not allow us to have those kinds of provisions in free trade treaties, it specifically says we cannot take up those matters in free trade negotiations. It is the opposite of what we need. We are the leader in the world. We are the one that has to help bring this infrastructure, this architecture to the world. What you are voting on tonight is a very imperfect instrument that will not get us where we need to be. We can do better than this. Vote this fast track down. Let us come back next year in a bipartisan way, honestly and decently, and put together a piece of legislation that will allow America to lead the world to a higher standard of living and to the benefits of trade for all the people of the world.

Mr. GEPHARDT

Mr. GEPHARDT. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of this amendment, which would restore Section 907 of the Freedom Support Act. Over the past several years, the people of the Caucasus have suffered terribly ongoing military conflict in the region. Of particular concern, the extreme hardship and deprivation endured by the people of Armenia and Nagorno Karabakh defy both American and international norms regarding the human rights of innocent civilians. Recognizing the humanitarian needs of the Armenian people, U.S. Government has endeavored to provide assistance to the innocent victims of the conflict. Unfortunately, the delivery of much of this aid continues to be stymied by Armenia's neighbors. I have often spoken out against nations which have attempted to interfere with U.S. humanitarian effort around the world. I supported the Humanitarian Aid Corridor Act in 1995 and its strengthening in 1997, which banned aid to nations which block shipments of U.S. humanitarian assistance to other countries. The United States government has concluded an ongoing effort to promote peace and reconciliation between Armenia and Azerbaijan, both to end the human suffering and to achieve stability in the region. At this time, it would not be advisable to unilaterally eliminate the diplomatic tool that it embodied in Section 907 of the Freedom Support Act. This tool is intended to provide an incentive for peace, and I hope it will continue to be used effectively to that end. I urge your support of this amendment.

Mr. GEPHARDT

Mr. GEPHARDT. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 4284, a bill to authorize the establishment of a memorial to Mahatma Gandhi here in the nation's capital. Born October 2, 1869 in Probandar, western India, Mahatma Gandhi was the preeminent leader of Indian nationalism and advocate of nonviolence in the 20th century. Appealing to reason, justice, and tolerance, Gandhi served as a powerful and effective force in bringing about Indian independence through his teaching of nonviolent civil disobedience. In many ways, India's independence and strength today owes much to the conviction and courage of Mahatma Gandhi. Gandhi's leadership in promoting peaceful social and political change has inspired many around the world and sustained efforts for the improvement of civil and human rights worldwide. He has won the affection of so many, including revered American leaders like civil rights advocate Martin Luther King, for his tireless efforts to improve social equality. In addition to playing a pivotal role in creating modern India, Gandhi's work provides a model for generations to come. Today's measure builds on earlier Congressional efforts to honor Gandhi. In 1994, on the occasion of the 125th anniversary of Gandhi's birth, I authored a resolution to honor Gandhi's unwavering dedication to India's people and a man whose name has come to symbolize freedom and justice around the world. On the occasion of the 50th anniversary of its India's independence, it is both fitting and appropriate that we honor Gandhi's legacy with the establishment of a memorial in the nation's capital, where people from all around the world can gather to commemorate and reflect on Gandhi's life and vision. I am proud to join my colleagues in voting for this important measure.

Mr. GEPHARDT

Mr. GEPHARDT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman, and I share his optimism. I want to thank the gentleman from Missouri for bringing this resolution. Mr. Speaker, let me just first say that I have been a Cardinal fan my entire life, as I am sure my friend from Missouri has been. The night that Mark McGwire hit this home run was indeed a very important night in the life of any Cardinal fan. In fact, I was alone watching it on television and tears streamed down my face as I saw him make this accomplishment. I think that there is a much larger meaning, however, that comes out of this, in both the case of Mark McGwire and Sammy Sosa. First, they have both shown love for their families, they have shown love for fellow human beings, and they have shown respect for other human beings who have had similar records or their families have had a connection with similar records. Those are very important messages for baseball heroes to send to the people, and I most want to be for this resolution today because of that and because of what that means to Americans and what that means to all of our people. We commend them, we honor them, and we wish them well in the days ahead.