Dick Gephardt

Mr. GEPHARDT

Mr. GEPHARDT. Mr. Speaker, I rise to salute Mark McGwire and his extraordinary feat in setting a new, single-season home run record. Throughout this season, Americans have been treated to one of the most incredible sporting achievements of our lifetime. The single- season home run mark of 61 stood as perhaps the most awesome feat in baseball history. I feel privileged to have been able to witness Mark McGwire in action this year--every baseball fan in America knows that they have seen something special in 1998. Roger Maris set that record 37 years ago, topping perhaps the most impressive achievement of Babe Ruth, the best all-around player ever to take the field in professional baseball. Watching McGwire's pursuit of 62 home runs, placing him among icons like Ruth and Maris, has been a pure joy to witness. Mark McGwire is not only an outstanding athlete, he is also a man whose conduct epitomizes good sportsmanship. He has remained focused on his goal in the face of a media frenzy and a sea of exploding flash bulbs. And he did it with amazing grace and real class. The chase showed something special about Mark McGwire. But it also showed me something special about the people of St. Louis. The fact that seven very lucky fans gave up progressively larger amounts of money, returning their souvenir home run balls to Number 25, showed that Cardinals fans truly are, as the magazine Baseball America called them, ``The Best Baseball Fans in America.'' These fans showed their true spirit when they stood and cheered not only for St. Louis' own Mark McGwire, but also for that other great athlete, the Cubs' Sammy Sosa. Mr. Speaker, I could not be more proud to say I am from St. Louis, and I could not be more proud to say I am a Cardinals' fan. Thank you and congratulations, Mark McGwire. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. GEPHARDT

Mr. GEPHARDT. Mr. Speaker, we enter a period of great importance for our people's House of Representatives and for our country. As has been said, next to declaring war, nothing we do here rises to the importance of this decision. I will vote for this rule today, but I must report that I am disappointed in the way we arrived at this rule and in the result. And, more importantly, I am disappointed in our initial attempt, which I still have faith in, to try to reach bipartisan and nonpartisan agreements on how we go through this process. The Speaker has said, and I believe his word, that he wants this to be nonpartisan. The gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde) has said that he wants it to be fair and nonpartisan, and I believe his word. But at the end of the day yesterday we were told that there were some on the other side that could not go along with ideas that I believe many in the Republican leadership thought were reasonable ideas. Let me say what I think should have been in this rule. First, I believe that the President deserved 24 or 48 hours to read these allegations and conclusions before it was made public and sent all across the Nation and the world. We give Members that courtesy when Members are charged with wrongdoing. We have given other Presidents that courtesy. And I believe, in all fairness, this President deserves that basic fairness. What could possibly be lost by another 24 or 48 hours before this were made public? Secondly, the independent counsel himself told us that there is information in parts two and three in this evidence that could be highly sensitive and injurious to innocent individuals. Now, I know that in the rush to get all this out we can all forget the rights and the reputation of innocent individuals. I simply ask all of us to put ourselves in the shoes of the people that could be injured by the leaking of this information. And I would also remind Members that already this morning material is being leaked in the media. Details have found their way already into the media that supposedly come from this information. Why do I not have faith and confidence that we can hold the material that we should hold? I take the gentleman from New York (Mr. Solomon) at his word. I realize our rules say that we should not give this out if we have been charged to not give it out. I pray and hope that all of our Members, Democratic and Republican, will live with that admonition and will not leak this material out injuring the reputation of innocent people. Surely we can rise to this occasion. Now, there are many tests ahead. This is the first step of what could be a long process. And I guess my lesson from today is that it takes all of us, not just some of us, in order to make this process work. This is a body of 435 human beings, and we are called on to be better than sometimes our natures allow us to be. This is a sacred process. This goes to the heart of our democracy. This is not a second election. This is not politics. This is not spinning. This is not polling. This is not a lynch mob. This is not a witch-hunt. This is not trying to find facts to support our already- reached conclusions. This is a constitutional test. Alexander Hamilton, in the Federalist Papers, said, when speaking of impeachment, ``There will always be the greatest danger that the decision will be regulated more by the comparative strength of the parties than by the real demonstrations of innocence and guilt.'' We are all partisans. We are all in politics. We all believe strongly in our views and we all want our views to be realized by this House. But that is not what this is about. I ask my Members to reach inside themselves in these days ahead, when we are tested, as we will be tested, to be nonpartisan, to be fair, to be objective. And I ask my friend on the other side of the aisle to do the same. I will come and I ask our Members to come more than halfway to reach nonpartisan agreements, to make this a fair process. I pray that we can do this. I am in awe of what we do here. I am so proud to be a Member of this body, because we stand for democracy and the rule of law that no one is above and no one is below. I am in awe of what we achieve here without violence. We must do this right. And I beg the Members, every one of you, to bring out the best in us to do this right. Our children and our grandchildren will know if we did.

Mr. GEPHARDT

Mr. GEPHARDT. Mr. Speaker, I rise to salute Mark McGwire and his awesome feat in setting a new, single-season home run record. Throughout this season, Americans have been treated to one of the most incredible sporting achievements of our lifetime. The single- season home run mark of 61 stood as perhaps the most awesome feat in baseball history. I feel privileged to have been able to witness Mark McGwire in action this year--every baseball fan in America knows that they have seen something special in 1998. Roger Maris set that record 37 years ago, topping perhaps the most impressive achievement of Babe Ruth, the best all-around player ever to take the field in professional baseball. Watching McGwire's pursuit of 62 home runs, placing him among icons like Ruth and Maris, has been a pure joy to witness. Mark McGwire is not only an outstanding athlete, he is also a man whose conduct epitomizes good sportsmanship. He has remained focused on his goal in the face of a media frenzy and a sea of exploding in flash bulbs. And he did it with amazing grace and real class. The chase showed something special about Mark McGwire. But it also showed me something special about the people of St. Louis. The fact that seven very lucky fans gave up progressively larger amounts of money, returning their souvenir home runs balls to Number 25, showed that Cardinals fans truly are, as Baseball America called them, the Best Baseball Fans in America. These fans showed their true spirit when they stood and cheered not only for St. Louis' own Mark McGwire, but also for that great athlete, the Cub's, Sammy Sosa. Mr. Speaker, I could not be more proud to say I am from St. Louis, and I could not be more proud to say I am a Cardinals fan. Thank you and congratulations Mark McGwire.

Mr. GEPHARDT

Mr. GEPHARDT. Mr. Chairman, there is a great saying by a great person who once said, ``Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.'' Republicans have failed to learn from our past experiences with the 1990 census, at the cost of leaving out millions of Americans in the year 2000 count. We are here today debating the Mollohan amendment simply because our Republican colleagues have forgotten about what happened in 1990, when the census failed to count over 6 million people in this country. Their collective amnesia will condemn us to repeat another failed census which disproportionately undercounts Hispanic and African Americans, children and rural residents. Republicans like to act like they have learned the lesson of past mistakes on the great civil rights issues of our generation, when many in their party were on the wrong side of efforts to extend voting rights and desegregate public places in our country. The census is today's great civil rights issue, and once again Republicans are standing against what is right and what will give us an accurate census. They are determined to ensure that the 2000 census has an even greater undercount by limiting funding to the Census Bureau in the Commerce-State-Justice appropriations bill to only six months. The Republicans' action in this legislation would directly undermine the ability of the Census Bureau to plan and prepare for the year 2000 census, and it would undermine the constitutional responsibility that James Madison laid before this body to use the best data available to conduct the decennial census. Rather than providing the Census Bureau the full funding it requires to ensure that every American is counted, the Republicans have decided to place their own partisan political interests above a fair and accurate count of every person in this Nation. The Census Bureau has created a plan that will count everyone. It is a plan that relies on the most modern scientific methods to supplement the traditional head count, and will save us hundreds of millions of dollars in costs. Not only does the overwhelming majority of the scientific community support the Census Bureau's plan, the National Academy of Sciences has concluded that using scientific statistical methods is the most valid and cost effective way to count the population. Most importantly, the Federal courts have given the Commerce Department and the Census Bureau the authority to determine what are the best methods for conducting the census. Republicans ignore the expertise of the scientific community and the decisions of the courts. Their political position flies in the face of the facts. Republicans are repeating the mistakes of the past. Democrats have learned from these mistakes and are working towards achieving a better census and a more accurate count of all Americans. The Mollohan amendment would require the Census Bureau to continue planning for the 2000 census until the Supreme Court makes the final determination of what is constitutional. It is the only logical choice for Democrats and Republicans alike who want to see preparation and planning for the 2000 census proceed without political interruptions. Let me add one further point. If we do not get an accurate census, it will have enormous economic implications for every community in this country. I have had both Republican and Democratic mayors say to me that this issue is the most important economic issue for their city, their town, their county, their village. This is not just about politics, although, unfortunately, it has become that. It is about the economic future of every city, village and town in this country. Democratic and Republican mayors alike want sampling because they realize it is the only way we are going to get an accurate census. Vote for the Mollohan amendment. Let us keep the promise of the Constitution. Let us get an accurate count. Let us do the right thing for the American people.

Mr. GEPHARDT

Mr. GEPHARDT. Mr. Chairman, the Executive Order Mr. Hefley seeks to nullify is not about providing special status to gay and lesbian Americans in federal hiring and employment. It's simply about providing them with the same protections against discrimination that are already in place for other Americans who have suffered from discrimination. Complaints about the quality of public servants are unfortunately all too commonplace. Surely, this amendment will drive away many applicants from pubic service at a time when our challenges as a nation are too great to justify excluding even one qualified American from helping us solve these problems. Sexual orientation should not be considered in the hiring, promoting, or termination of an employee in the federal government. You would think that this would be something we could all agree on. But sadly, the supporters of this amendment are making a statement that they tolerate bigotry and they condone arbitrary firings. This is but the latest of several mean-spirited efforts by the Republican leadership against the gay and lesbian community. But the vast majority of Americans disagree with the Republican leadership. Seventy-five percent believe that gays and lesbians should have the same employment opportunities as all other Americans. That's all the Executive Order does, despite the protestations of its opponents. Why, when we have so much important work left to address over the next several weeks, are we considering this issue here today? At the very least, this is a case of misplaced priorities. At worst, it's a misguided effort to condone discrimination. Vote against discrimination and bigotry. Vote against this amendment.

Mr. GEPHARDT

Mr. GEPHARDT. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Kucinich amendment. I appreciate the concerns expressed by some opponents of this legislation that it could undermine the authority of the federal government to represent the United States on foreign policy and trade matters. My vote today is not intended to seek to undermine that authority; rather, it represents my belief that we must have a more activist approach to U.S. foreign and trade policy, one that is more responsive to the concerns of localities, and one that better reflects the values and priorities of the American people. Clearly, states and localities should not make foreign policy for our federal government, or take actions that undermine the U.S. government's policies. However, in cases where the federal government has failed to assert our fundamental values of freedom, democracy and human rights internationally, these entities have often taken actions that have spurred the federal government to assert U.S. leadership. The most dramatic example of this in recent memory is that of South Africa, where the conviction of individuals in universities, localities and other organizations generated a grassroots movement that propelled our government to impose comprehensive sanctions against the apartheid regime there. This in turn inspired an international effort that contributed to the downfall of South Africa's apartheid government. All of our nation's democratic institutions should have the opportunity to participate in efforts to promote positive change, both at home and abroad. Unfortunately, too often state and local entities feel that their voices are not heard as the federal government formulates policies that affect all Americans. To remedy this situation, we need a process that is more responsive to the legitimate concerns of localities. This amendment emphasizes the importance of giving localities the ability to voice these concerns, and would promote constructive dialogue rather than confrontation between them and the federal government on these important issues.

Mr. GEPHARDT

Mr. GEPHARDT. Madam Chairman, I rise to speak in strong support of the Shays-Meehan campaign reform bill, and I would like to begin this evening by paying tribute to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Meehan) and the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays). Without them we would not be here tonight, and without them and their belief in this issue we would not be on the threshold of being able to take this first very, very important step of campaign reform. They have shown us that campaign reform is an issue that can be delayed, but it will never be denied. We are not here by accident. There is a national crisis of confidence in our system of campaign financing. It is a crisis of confidence that cuts across party lines and should disturb all of us as Democrats, as Republicans, as Americans. The Republican mayor of New York during the New Deal years, Fiorello LaGuardia, once said: ``There's no Democratic or Republican way of cleaning the streets.'' There is no Democratic or Republican way of cleaning up our campaigns. We have reached the point in our Nation's history when too many Americans believe that special interests, lobbyists, wealthy interests wield too much influence in our campaigns and our democracy. That belief, right or wrong, has corroded many Americans' faith in their government and in their country. This is an issue that should have every Member of the House in search of a bipartisan solution to reverse this trend of alienation that divides Americans from their government. This is an issue that challenges us all to rise above the politics of the moment in search of a lasting solution, and I believe with all my heart that Shays-Meehan is that solution. This is the first real step. It may be modest, but it is the first real step to begin the process of reform this year. Friends of reform, the majority of our House Members, have banded together behind the bill, and, in a remarkable show of dedication we have voted down amendment after amendment, often amendments that we ourselves have proposed, in order to pass a bill that we can all accept and that will begin to get at the root of the problem, a democracy that is drowning in campaign money. I am sorry the leaders of this House have fought to protect and preserve the current system. They have wasted the precious time of this House by making us run through an obstacle course designed to kill Shays-Meehan. But they made their choice. They stood for the power of big money and against real bipartisan change. They were never really interested in this debate. They were interested in stopping the debate and having deadlock. But our efforts are an example of what we can do when we really work together in a bipartisan effort, putting aside party labels and party ideology and finding a practical answer to a very real problem. We were able to overcome all the obstacles. There is only one more obstacle, and that is getting enough votes tonight to make sure that this bill is the bill that we finally vote on at the end of the process. It can be done; it must be done. All of us are not just representatives of the People's House, we are temporary guardians of the jewel of democracy, and our role as guardians gives us the responsibility to make sure that the jewel is protected for this and for future generations. I congratulate these two sponsors. I congratulate the Republican and Democratic Members who have stood with them in bringing this bill to this point. One more obstacle. It must be done. Vote for Shays-Meehan.

Mr. GEPHARDT

Mr. GEPHARDT. Mr. Speaker, first, I want to thank the Speaker of the House and the majority leader and the majority whip and all of the Members of the House who today with one voice bring this resolution in memory and to honor the memory of these two great officers, Officer Chestnut and Officer Gibson. On Friday, at 3:40 or so in the afternoon, the family of the People's House was attacked by a deranged killer. We rise today in anguish and in real sorrow and devastation at the loss that occurred here in our House of Representatives and our Capitol. But our loss is not nearly the loss that is felt by these dear families. On Saturday, I had the opportunity to go to the House of Officer Gibson and to meet his wife and his children. Imagine putting yourself into the shoes of his wife who has lost her husband of many years without even so much as the opportunity to say goodbye. Imagine putting yourself into the shoes of a 13-year-old or a 15-year-old who adored your father and now he is gone. Their loss is unimaginable, unfathomable and impossible to understand. I hugged his wife and told her how sorry all of us are and how much we loved them and cared for them. And I told them that even though they had lost their father, that in a real sense they now have 435 additional fathers and mothers, and that we will never, ever forget and we will never, ever let them down. We will be there for them, for Officer Gibson's children and wife, Officer Chestnut's wife and children. I know that we will all be there to see that the injury that they have sustained, while it can never be taken back, while the loss can never be restored, that all of us together, functioning as a family, will be certain that they will not be injured further and, to the extent we can, we will love them forever. Supreme Court Justice Brandeis, one of the greatest justices in our Nation's history, said that courage is the secret of liberty. That courage that Justice Brandeis was talking about is usually quiet and unheralded and unnoticed. But today we stand to recognize the public acts of courage of two brave human beings who literally gave their lives in their line of duty and so that others could live. They lost their lives by the narrowest of margins. They could have been at another door. They could have been at another place. They could have been on another shift. But it is precisely that margin, measured out again and again on battlefields far, far from this place, on streets close to here, and last week only steps from where we stand, that marks out democracy from the darkness. These two good men, strong and decent, rank in the legion of honor of those who died so that liberty may live on in the lives of others. They remind us of the lesson of all of our history, that the survival and success of a free society depends far less on grand speeches than on countless individual acts of duty and courage. The ultimate sacrifice of J.J. Chestnut and John Gibson literally saved the lives of countless Members of our congressional family and countless numbers of visitors who pass through these halls. The scope of this tragedy could have been so much worse and touched so many more lives, had they not automatically responded so professionally and expertly to the horrible threat, the horrible violence which invaded this citadel of democracy. The tragic and senseless event was a horrible reminder that our liberty and the liberty of all Americans faces a silent threat from the dark side of human nature. Those of us who spend so much of our lives in this public place often forget about the reality, the daily reality of this threat. But the men and women of the Capitol Police never forget. They are our guardians, not just of offices and officials, but of our city on the hill, the place that is the pride of our government and our country and the heart of our self-government. They allow the business of democracy to thrive, open to the citizens to whom it belongs. We are here today to honor the fallen officers, but we also have to take this opportunity to salute the quiet courage of all the officers of the Capitol Police who come to work each day without notice, without heralding, without publicity, who get up and put their uniform on, pin their badge on and come into this place and face the threat of immediate death and violence. They are the salt of the earth. They are the reason our democracy can live, and they should be honored and they should be held up for all of our public to see and to notice today and always. The members of the force believe in this great House. They are dedicated to working hard to protect the Members, the staff and, yes, the visitors who pass through here every day. And they do their job well, and they do it professionally. And they do it with courtesy. As the Speaker said, Officer Chestnut was writing out directions for visitors to be able to get through the building. Another officer who was involved was also off getting a wheelchair. They have not just been guardians and policemen. They have been ambassadors of goodwill to the public which come to this building and want to understand what is happening here. Until a tragedy strikes, they never get the publicity or the attention they deserve for making this institution work and keeping it free and strong every day, every minute of every day and night. Today we honor their sacrifice and their service to this Nation and to all of us. I have the honor of being served also by a plainclothes officer, Ed Pence. Until Friday, I guess I never understood or was particularly conscious of the threat that he has faced every day over the last 9 years. I want to thank him. I want to thank his family. I want to thank all the officers and all of their families for their brave and dedicated service. It is easy for us on the other side of the thin blue line to forget that law enforcement is the most dangerous job in our country, but it is a fact that our officers and especially their families are reminded of every day. So we pay tribute to these brave officers who gave their lives in defense of all of us and for our liberty. As we especially honor their families, we especially honor their families who will never be made whole no matter what we say or what we do in this place. To those families we offer our prayers, we offer our gratitude. We cannot quench your sorrow. We can share it with you. We can stand in your shoes. We can imagine your hurt. We can imagine your anguish. We can pledge that you will be made whole, as best human beings can make you whole. We will never forget what your fathers did. They have made the ultimate sacrifice, and we will never forget it. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Bonior), the minority whip.

Mr. GEPHARDT

Mr. GEPHARDT. Mr. Speaker, the bill that the Republican leadership has brought to the floor is what happens when they bring a bill that they really do not believe in, when they bring a bill that is really designed to be political cover to address an area they really genuinely do not believe needs to be treated with legislation. It is a fake. It is a fig leaf. It is a sham. It is a subterfuge. It is a charade. It is cosmetic. It is ineffective. And it will not work to solve the real problems and the real concerns that the American people have in this area. If Republicans really believed in their bill and thought that it had merit, they would have had extensive hearings in the committee and allowed doctors and nurses, senior citizens and patients, consumers, health care company officials and others to come and testify and tell us in the Congress their feelings, pro and con, about the bill. If they really believed in their bill and what it did, they would not have been writing it at midnight last night, changing it, trying to shove things into it to try to attract the last few votes on their side to be able to pass the bill. They would have proudly stood for their bill as an effective answer. Mr. Speaker, I just ask Members today to ask themselves one simple question: Where are the doctors and nurses on this piece of legislation? Which piece of legislation do they support, the people who, on a daily basis, give their lives and their careers to help get people well? Mr. Speaker, they are for the Patients' Bill of Rights, the patient protection act written by the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell) and the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Ganske). They are against this sham, this political fig leaf that has been put up on the other side. Why is that the case? Let me give just three quick, simple reasons. First, the Republican bill does not guarantee that if our doctor says we need to see a specialist, that we will actually be able to see that specialist. Just imagine if a patient has cancer and their doctor says they need to see an oncologist. If the Republican bill passes, there will be no guarantee in the law that patient will be able to see that oncologist. Secondly, the idea of what is medically necessary will still, under the Republican bill, be up to bureaucrats in insurance companies who have their eyes on the bottom line, the profit line, and not on what is good medical care. Finally, no enforcement. No enforcement. This is a bill with rhetoric but without a remedy. What we need in this area is to be able to know that if the medical necessity is not observed, if the guarantee of the plan is not observed, that patients have some place to go to get a remedy. What physicians say to me is, ``I am accountable for my health care decisions every day, every minute of every day. But now we have some bureaucrat at the end of an 800-number who can make medical decisions that are just as important as my decisions, and they are not in any way accountable to anybody for the decisions they make.'' That is the heart of this bill, and that is why the Democratic bill is the only good bill before us today. Let me end with this. Members are voting today on the rights and the ability of flesh and blood human beings in their district. Make no mistake about this, they care about this bill. This really counts in their lives. When Americans need the Bill of Rights, they need it. Mr. Speaker, I sat with my son when he was sick in the hospital and talked to other parents of kids who had cancer and they would say, ``My policy did not cover, my policy did not work on the treatment, the experimental treatment that my son or daughter needed.'' Let me tell my colleagues that when one is sitting in that hospital room and they have a loved one in front of them who is dying because they cannot get the treatment that they have paid for, they will want this Patients' Bill of Rights and they will want it now. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote against this fig leaf. Vote for a good bill.

Mr. GEPHARDT

Mr. GEPHARDT. Mr. Speaker, I would begin my statement today with a question that I think all of us have to ask as we decide which way we are going to vote. The question is, if we had kept in place in the mid- 1980s a policy of constructive engagement with South Africa that is very much like the policy of constructive engagement we now have with China, would not Nelson Mandela be the President of South Africa today, or would he still be in jail? That is the question. I know no two countries are alike. I know no two sets of policy can be exactly the same. But I believe with all my heart that the policy we are following, which is basically a policy of saying that more trade, more economic relationships, more communication is sufficient to bring about real change in China, is a failed policy and it has not worked. If you will, simply look at the facts. Let us first look at trade. In 1987 the trade deficit with China was about $3 billion between the United States and China. Today it is over $60 billion. Our own Trade Representative has stated, as of this year, as of this year, that there is essentially a closed market in China to American products. Put aside the tariff difference. Our average tariff on their goods coming here, 2 percent. Their average tariff on our goods going there, 17 percent. But put that aside. The greatest barrier to our products going into China are nontariff barriers. Our own Trade Representative has said that their market is essentially closed now to our products. They had been unwilling to meet up with our demands to put them in the WTO. They are simply unwilling to allow for fair and free trade. So if my colleagues look at this in terms of trade policy, we are not making progress. We are going in the wrong direction. We are not going in the right direction. Let us take a look at human rights. Again, no progress. The President was there, and I admire him for going, and I think it was right to go. But let me tell my colleagues something. The Chinese leadership is happy to have our President or anybody else come and make statements about human rights as long as they do not have to do anything about human rights. Talk is cheap. I am from Missouri. Show me. Nothing is happening. One hundred fifty dissidents who were in Tiananmen Square are still in jail. Even as our President came to China, people were locked up. People were locked up for no causes. People were locked up because they dared to try to express themselves politically freely. There are no human rights in this country. Every violation that could be made of human rights has been made, and there is no progress. Look at the record. If the policy were working, the record would be different. It is not. So if a policy is not working, we need a new policy, and I believe that policy has to have actions as well as words. I respect deeply my colleagues who believe that more trade and more talk will work. I respectfully disagree. I do not think that anything but solid action will make a difference. I want to remind my colleagues of what was said in the debate about South Africa in 1985. I want to read my colleagues a statement. One of our Members in 1985 said this: ``South Africa is making positive and concrete strides under an American policy of constructive engagement. Given the progress already made and the virtual irreversibility of the trends, sanctions and other punitive activities can hardly be expected to produce more salutary results than President Reagan's policy of constructive engagement.'' Our respected colleague, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde), said those words on this floor in 1985, but this House in a bipartisan way stood for taking a definitive action. Words were not enough. We had to stop having a normal trading relationship with South Africa to get their attention. Our trade deficit with China is financing the present leadership in China. They have a deficit with other countries put together. We are the only country they have a huge surplus with. In effect, our trade policy is financing the policy that they follow. Let me end with this: We always are told that the reason we cannot do this is because of money. We are going to lose contracts. We are going to lose business. We are going to lose a billion consumers in the future. Let me just end by saying this to you as you search your heart in this vote: This country has always stood for much more than simply money and economic success. This country is an idea. It is a universal idea that applies to every citizen of the world. Abraham Lincoln in 1861 said this: ``I have often inquired of myself, what great principle or idea it was that kept this Nation so long together. It was not the mere matter of the separation of the colonies from the Motherland but something in that declaration giving liberty, not only to the great people of this country but hope for the world for all time.'' That is what we are. That is what we have to be. That is what we have to represent to the people of China and the people of the world. Wei Jingsheng was in my office a few months ago and I asked him what we should do on this vote, and he said, ``Congressman, please understand that the only thing the leaders in China understand is money and trade and whether or not you are willing to really stand for what you believe in.'' Your vote today is for what we believe in. Let us change China. Let us have real engagement. Let us bring about liberty finally, as only we can, for the people, the great people of China. Vote against a normal trading relationship with China.

Mr. GEPHARDT

Mr. GEPHARDT. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak against the Republican rule on the National Endowment for the Arts and in support of full funding for the NEA. We must make this commitment not only to fulfill our Nation's cultural life but also to nourish the local economic development efforts which rise from our investments in the arts. I hope that the majority of the House will eventually support funding for the National Endowment for the Arts, but we can only get there by crossing an obstacle course put in place by the Republican leadership. Their Byzantine maneuvering on this rule is a waste of the House's precious time. Support for NEA is more than just about the love of art or high- minded support of cultural endeavors. It is about supporting the efforts of State and local governments to create economic growth. The NEA's funding goes to projects which increase economic opportunity by promoting the cultural and artistic activities of local citizens. The arts enhance a community's quality of life, thereby attracting industry, jobs, and increasing the tax base. Investment in the arts is both economically prudent and wise. Federal funds are leveraged by localities to bring about a bigger bang for the NEA buck. The $98 million invested in the NEA by the Federal Government stimulated State and local governments to provide more than $975 million to the arts. This is big business: The nonprofit arts industry generates $36 billion of business annually and supports 1.3 million full-time jobs. And the NEA benefits rural as well as urban areas. The NEA's partnerships foster rural community revitalization, downtown development, and historic revitalization. The cultural traditions of local communities can serve as a strategy for economic development of economically depressed rural communities. Also, funding for the NEA is about supporting a full and rich education for our children. In 1997, 10 percent of its annual grant dollars were spent in support of pre-K through 12 arts education programs. NEA grants are used to provide educational opportunities for millions of children to learn and be enriched by the arts, opportunities that would not exist without the NEA. So we need to fund the NEA to make sure that we nurture the artistic capabilities of all Americans. Funding for the NEA is a small investment in the spiritual and intellectual health of our country. It has and will continue to pay great dividends for our Nation, far beyond its modest cost. I urge my colleagues to reject this rule and support full funding for the National Endowment for the Arts.

Mr. GEPHARDT

Mr. GEPHARDT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this conference report. I believe that what has been done to reform the IRS is important. It is supported by the President, supported by Members on both sides of the aisle, and I intend to vote for it. However, there was a provision that was slipped into the conference which, frankly, is irrelevant to the substance of this bill. What was slipped into the conference was to change the holding period on certain capital gains from 18 months to 12 months. It seems that some in the majority in this House cannot resist any opportunity to try to put another tax break in tax legislation to help the wealthiest of the wealthy. Here is a chart which shows who gets the benefit of changing the time that you have to hold certain capital gains to receive the capital gains benefit from 18 to 12 months. Bob Dole, a former Senator, had a bill a number of years ago that would change capital gains to make them all time-sensitive. That probably makes sense. When the bill was passed to change the capital gains rate last year, we began to move in that direction by having an 18-month waiting period. Now, the first chance that is obtained, we are going back to a 12- month holding period. The Speaker of the House announced yesterday he wants to take the capital gains rate from 20 to 15 percent. I suppose the ultimate goal is what the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Armey), the majority leader, has said over and over again, and that is to have a capital gains rate of absolutely zero. Absolutely zero. Now, while this is going on and while we are tucking in provisions that help the wealthiest of the wealthy, let us look at what is happening in the Committee on Appropriations of our House of Representatives. A proposal to cut out low-income energy assistance, a cut of $1 billion that helps over four million low-income households pay their winter heating bill; a proposal to eliminate the summer jobs program that helps 530,000 disadvantaged young people; cut school-to- work by $100 million; cut $250 million from the President's request for training and job opportunities for poor young people; cut Title I by $437 million, that would eliminate reading and math help for 520,000 disadvantaged children; cut $140 million for mentoring and tutoring. The list is too long. I do not have time to go through all the cuts. We are right back to where we started from three years ago: tax cuts for the wealthy, paid for by cuts on the poor and the middle class. That is the program of the Republican Party. They are right back at it. We are right back where we started from. There is plenty of time for tax cuts for the wealthy; there is no time for the middle class, there is no time for the poor. I urge Members to vote for the motion to be offered by the gentleman from Washington (Mr. McDermott) to recommit that will take out this ill-considered, wrongful tax cut for the wealthiest of the wealthy. We can do that this afternoon.

Mr. GEPHARDT. Mr. Speaker, I would like to express my deep concern about the inclusion in this legislation of an unrelated provision that, while seemingly innocuous and noticed by few, will neutralize a principle that has been at the heart of our nation's trade policy for decades. Section 5003 of H.R. 2676 will change the term ``most-favored-nation- treatment'' to ``normal trade relations'' in all relevant U.S. statutes. This change in terminology undermines the foundations of a trade policy that has been used to advance U.S. interests for many years. This policy has in part consisted of ensuring that the most favorable terms of trade are accorded to nations with which the United States share similar concepts and practices regarding international commerce. In the past, nations we have deemed to be unworthy of this status include communist regimes and regimes that engaged in particularly oppressive acts against their citizens, such as Poland's martial-law government in 1982. It is unfortunate that over the past several years, our government has refrained from using MFN status as a tool to advance U.S. interests broadly or, at a minimum, obtain important commitments from our trading partners. I am particularly disappointed that we have not effectively conditioned or cut off MFN status for China in the aftermath of the 1989 Tiananmen Square massacre. Our government's recent pattern of behavior in this regard, however, is no reason to now strip this tool of the nomenclature that conveys the purpose for which it was originally intended. And given the context in which this change of terminology has been proposed this year--that is, in connection with once again renewing MFN status for China--I am convinced that it is an attempt to semantically extinguish the values that should be at the core of our policy toward China and all other nations. Earlier this week, I conveyed these concerns to the Chairman of the Ways and Means Subcommittee on Trade, as that subcommittee prepared to consider this proposal as a stand-alone legislative measure. I believe that a legislative change of this significance should be debated separately from the IRS legislation to which it has been attached. But again, I fear that the manner in which this serious issue has been presented to the House is a maneuver to neutralize its importance to our trade policy and the values that should underlie it. I submit for the Record a copy of my letter to the Chairman of the Ways and Means Subcommittee on Trade. Congress of the United States, House of Representatives, Office of the Democratic Leader, Washington, DC, June 23, 1998. Hon. Phillip M. Crane, Chairman, Subcommittee on Trade, Longworth House Office Building, Washington, DC Dear Mr. Chairman: It is my understanding that today the Trade Subcommittee will be marking up a bill to change the terminology of ``most favored nation'' (MFN) to ``normal trade relations'' (NTR). I remain concerned that changing this widely accepted trade designation would be misleading and ill advised. Why would we want to overturn years of U.S. commercial law, primarily to send a gesture that we desire ``normal trade relations'' with China? The fact is that China is not a normal trading nation. It is not even a market economy; it is a communist centralized economy. While we grant China MFN on a yearly basis, we receive little in reciprocal trade benefits from China. The ever ballooning trade deficit with China, up more than 175% since 1992, proves that Chinese markets remain closed to U.S. goods and services. This year, the U.S. is projected to have a $60 billion trade deficit with China. Unacceptable Chinese behavior on a whole host of important issues like human rights, proliferation, religious freedom, Tibet, organ sales, forced abortion, trade and labor rights should preclude any preferential trade designation from the U.S. We need to use our leverage in the trade relationship and in other areas to press for changes in these unacceptable Chinese practices. However, if this measure passes, we would be unilaterally placating China. Make no mistake. It is a preferential trading status that countries like China receive when the President makes a special request for a waiver from Jackson Vanik. When the U.S. grants MFN, nonmarket nations gain benefits from the U.S. that are often unilateral in nature. For example, China was granted $1 billion in annual tariff concessions when the WTO Uruguay Round went into effect, because it receives the MFN designation. Let us continue to debate MFN on the merits. Rather than attempting to confuse the U.S. public and our allies with this new and inaccurate NTR designation, it would be better to acknowledge that problems remain across the array of political, economic and security issues in our bilateral relationship with China. Real engagement means communicating honestly with China about the problems and the positive aspects of our bilateral relationship. To say that the U.S. has ``normal trade relations'' with China is disingenuous and suggests that China's current behavior is acceptable to the U.S. I continue to believe that China can and must do better to earn the ``most favored nation'' designation from the U.S. Let's not change the terms of the debate just to get China off the hook. Thank you for this opportunity to express my views. Sincerely, Richard A. Gephardt.

Mr. GEPHARDT

Mr. GEPHARDT. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the Miller amendment. I believe this amendment is nothing more than a proposal to transfer wealth from farmers to giant food corporations. I believe it would harm hardworking farm families in rural communities across this country. Throughout much of farm country, farmers today are struggling. I want to reiterate that. Farmers in the upper Midwest and in the Midwest are struggling and having a very hard time paying their bills. The Republican freedom to fail farm bill has sharply reduced prices for sugar beets, wheat and other commodities. In States like Minnesota, North Dakota, Montana and Idaho, many family farmers grow both wheat and sugar beets. Wheat prices are down by 50 percent in just 2 years. Fifty percent. Sugar beet prices are down by 12 percent. The sugar program is one of the few areas that these farmers can go to in order to get through very tough times. Now some want to cut this last lifeline for these farmers. This proposal would also harm rural economic development. The gentleman from Hawaii (Mr. Abercrombie), who strongly opposes this amendment, has told me this program sustains 6,000 good-paying union jobs in his area, his State alone. The winners under this amendment are big food corporations, not consumers. Although sugar and corn sweetener prices have dropped, sweetened product prices continue to go up. Nothing in this amendment assures consumers that they are going to get lower prices. This is a bad effort. It will hurt farmers, it will hurt consumers, it will hurt our rural economy. Democrats believe our farmers and rural communities deserve a fair return for their hard work. Let us stand up for farmers and reject this amendment.

Mr. GEPHARDT

Mr. GEPHARDT. Mr. Speaker, I urge a ``no'' vote on the conference report, and I urge an ``aye'' vote on the Rangel motion to recommit. I believe with all my heart that this issue, education and child rearing, is the most important issue that faces us as a people. We have never needed more in our history to have well-educated, mentally capable young people. In my home State of Missouri, the only issue that really dominated the State legislature was how we could go from 30,000 to 60,000 prison cells over the next 5 years, a symbol of failure of our child rearing and our education system in this country. I am tough on law and order and so are my constituents. But I say to my constituents, you cannot afford what we are doing. We cannot afford to hold a million and a half people in prison, to carry them, to keep them because they are unsafe to have in our society. We also know that if we raise children correctly, they will not get into trouble. They will not be dysfunctional citizens. But we also know our society has changed dramatically. People are not at home to raise children as they once were. That is a fact of life. We are not going to change that. And so we have to put the investment into education so that children are raised correctly. What this bill misses entirely is that there is a whole revolution going on out in public schools to fix the schools to meet the need. In my district, I have a school in the inner city that is getting great results. The kids get great grades. I went there and I asked them how they are doing it. They said, we have parents as first teachers in the public school to teach parents how to be better parents and how to raise children. They have preschool in the public school. They have after-school in the public school, so children are engaged even at age zero, age 6 months, age 1 year, age 3 years in constructive, professionally run activities so they can be productive citizens when they come out of the education process. Does this bill support that effort that is going on in Shepherd School in my district? I daresay not. What this bill offers is $7 a year to the families that are sending those kids to Shepherd School. No, what Shepherd School needs is not this bill. This is a silly bill. It is a frivolous bill. It is not serious about public education. Seven dollars a year to families in my district fighting to get their kids a good education is frivolous. The Rangel substitute would offer real help to the people at Shepherd School. What do they need? They need bigger classrooms. They need a competent building. They need computers in the classrooms. They need help, real help. Listen to Paul Vallas, CEO of the Chicago Public Schools. This is somebody that is on the line every day. Mayor Daley in Chicago said, ``Give me the schools, give me the responsibility, and we will fix them,'' and he is fixing them. He put his best person on this job. Here is what Paul Vallas says. He says this bill, the Coverdell bill, is really designed to give more affluent people compensation for decisions they already made to go private. That is all it is. This does not help public education. It does not help the people that are out there in the crucible of the fight to fix public education. It helps just a few people who have already chosen to send their kids to private schools. What a shame this is. What a missed opportunity this is. I urge Members to vote for the Rangel substitute, which gives real, tangible help to the real revolution that is going on out there in the real world to fix the public schools so all of our kids are productive citizens, and vote against a frivolous, unserious, ridiculous piece of legislation that does nothing but help the privileged few.

Mr. GEPHARDT

Mr. GEPHARDT. Mr. Speaker, I urge Members to vote against this rule. As I said yesterday on the floor, I think the American people want us to get campaign reform, and they want us to get it in a timely manner so that it can actually get through the rest of the process here in the House, get through the Senate, become a law, and be able to go to the President's desk. This rule is simply designed to increase the amount of time that we will spend. It is part, I think, of an effort to talk the bill to death. We have all the ability we need to have amendments to all of these different proposals that are germane to these proposals. If we had a procedure here regularly that said nongermane amendments should be brought, that would be the rules of the House. Those are not the rules of the House. There is no earthly explanation for this rule at this time other than to delay the processing of this bill. I think there is a bipartisan majority in this house for the Shays- Meehan bill; that is my sense, a bipartisan, bipartisan majority in this House for the Shays-Meehan bill. The only explanation anybody can give for voting for this rule is that they want it to delay this process so that this bill cannot become law this year. This is not the right thing for the House to do. The American people want and demand a big first step in campaign reform. The Shays-Meehan bill is that. I commend, again, the Members in the Republican Party who have worked so hard and long to get Shays-Meehan through this House. I commend the Members on our side. This is one of the rare moments maybe in this 2- year period that we have a real bipartisan effort of coming together to solve a major problem that faces the American society. Let us get it done. Vote against this rule. Let us keep moving. We could have a vote on Shays-Meehan yet this week and get the bill back over to the Senate and get it to the President's desk. Let us vote today for campaign reform. Let us vote against this rule.

Mr. GEPHARDT

Mr. GEPHARDT. Mr. Chairman, I rise to state that this is a good idea. The commission has much to be said for it. I have been for this proposal in the past, and I would hope that we could add this to the Shays-Meehan bill, which I believe we will be able to do. But I also rise to say that the way this procedure as written, if this bill gets the most votes, it would in effect defeat the Shays-Meehan proposal. So I rise tonight to ask Members on both sides of the aisle to vote ``no'' on this proposal, because we will get a chance to add it, if we get that far, to the Shays-Meehan proposal, so it rightly could be added to that proposal. All of us know that while Shays-Meehan is good reform and has a lot of the elements that we think is the first big step of reform, there is a lot more that needs to be done, and this commission could start as we pass Shays-Meehan and could look at other reforms that we could do in the future. I want to especially commend the Members in the Republican Party who have worked so hard with Members in our party to try to get Shays- Meehan to be the bill that comes out of this process. As the last speaker said, campaign reform is hard to do. It is complicated. Everybody is an expert here because we all run in our own campaigns, and we all have a little bit different idea of what the right reforms are. But in my mind, I believe that Shays-Meehan is the best bill that we can do at this point in time. It is supported by many, many outside organizations. It does attack both soft money and independent expenditures which I think most Members and observers believe are the major areas that have been abused. We can do it now. We can do it this month. We can get it off to the Senate and try to get a bill out of the Senate that would be similar. By voting ``no'' on the commission or voting ``present,'' we are not really voting ``no'' for it on the last chance we will have. We can put it onto the Shays-Meehan bill and have the best of both worlds. So in the spirit of bipartisanship, in the spirit of reform, in the spirit of getting something meaningful done, which I think the American people desperately want us to do in this Congress, I urge Members to vote ``no'' or ``present'' on this very good commission proposal; I urge Members to add it to the Shays-Meehan bill when we get the chance, and I urge Members on both sides of the aisle to vote for Shays-Meehan to give it the greatest vote so that under this process, it is the bill we vote on last and it is the bill that we send to the Senate.

Mr. GEPHARDT

Mr. GEPHARDT. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to urge support for the passage of H.R. 3156, a bill which would authorize the President to present, on behalf of Congress, a Congressional gold medal to President Nelson Mandela of South Africa in recognition of his lifetime dedication to the abolition of apartheid and the promotion of freedom and justice for all the people of his nation. I can think of no person who deserves such an honor more than Nelson Mandela. In the face of great adversity and suffering extreme personal hardship and sacrifice, President Mandela led the struggle to bring an end to the insidious policy of apartheid and to establish in its place a flourishing multi-racial, multi-ethnic democracy in South Africa. His steadfast dedication to these goals continues to galvanize and serve as an inspiration to those around the world who are struggling for freedom, justice, and democracy today. Moreover, President Mandela's commitment to the people of South Africa did not end with the lifting of apartheid. Since assuming the presidency in 1994, he has strived to further the process of healing and reconciliation of all of South Africa's people. Bearing no malice for the injustice and mistreatment he suffered under apartheid, he has sought to bring South Africans of all races and cultures together in a spirit of peace, humility, and reconciliation. The strength of South Africa's emerging pluralism today is a testament to President Mandela's integrity, courage and leadership. His vision serves as a model across the world. It is for this reason that I am a proud original co-sponsor of this measure. It is more an honor than a privilege to urge the bestowal upon Nelson Mandela of one of our nation's highest honors. I hope all Members will join me in recognizing Nelson Mandela by supporting this measure before us today.

Mr. GEPHARDT

Mr. GEPHARDT. Mr. Speaker, I rise with my colleagues to condemn this senseless, horrible, dastardly act of violence based on racial hatred. I personally want to extend the prayers and thoughts of all of us and our families to the family of James Byrd. They are in our hearts, in our prayers, in our minds at this time of overwhelming sadness and sorrow. This death brings to mind the worst chapter in our Nation's history, when violent racial intolerance was practiced regularly in our land. While it is the Byrd family that will bear the greatest burden in this tragedy, every one of us in America, every person is diminished by this act of violence. I would simply ask our entire Nation that we all reach out and embrace this family as part of our American family and somehow help them heal the wounds that have been opened by this act of violence. I hope that some way we can work together so that this will not happen again to someone else in Texas or in Missouri or some other State in our union. This is a shameful act. It is a dastardly act. It must not happen again. I thought, and I believe you thought, that we had ended this era. It has not ended. It must end. It must end. Our prayers and thoughts, our belief, our compassion is with the family of James Byrd.

Mr. GEPHARDT

Mr. GEPHARDT. Mr. Chairman, I rise to speak in strong support of reforming our Nation's campaign finance laws. After months of obstruction and delay, after the steady stream of efforts by the Republican leadership to squelch this debate, the House is finally discussing campaign reform. I support the constitutional amendment which has been brought to the floor today. In my opinion, it is the only comprehensive solution for fixing our campaign finance system. But now is not the right time for a vote on it. This amendment, like all campaign reform bills other than Meehan-Shays, must be put on hold. There is a crisis of confidence in our system of campaign financing. It is imperative that we pass reform this year--and it is urgent that we take the first step now. But the best way to clean up the system is by voting for the bipartisan Meehan-Shays bill, not through any other campaign reform measure, including this one. I do, however, believe that the Congress should vote some day--not today--on this amendment. When I introduced it last year, I did so because I believe it is the best way to shut down the sewer pipe of big money which is polluting our political process. Over the last two decades, Congress and State and local governments have tried to enact limits on the role of money in politics. We have tried to pass legislation that would help put a bigger premium on the quality of a candidate's ideas, not the quantity of contributions to his or her campaign. But we are hamstrung by a Supreme Court which has equated spending money with political speech. The Founding Fathers did not envision a political system where candidates for Congress routinely raise and spend millions of dollars. They could not have foreseen candidates spending tens of millions of dollars of their own funds to get elected. And they certainly could not have imagined the non-stop fundraising carousel that candidates must ride in order to run for office. This Amendment would clarify that campaign spending is not an absolute; that we could enact modest restrictions on spending to reduce the dominance of fundraising and campaign dollars in our political process. Some day, I hope Congress will pass this constitutional amendment and fix our broken campaign finance system once and for all. But I will not vote for it today. The opponents of campaign reform want to kill the process--the only thing that has changed is their tactics. First they tried delay and obstruction, now it's endless debate and amendment. The only way proponents of reform can prevail is through a single-minded focus on Meehan-Shays. Meehan-Shays is our last, best chance for campaign reform this year. Friends of reform--the majority of House members, I believe--must band together behind the Meehan-Shays bill. It may not suit everyone's taste--campaign reform comes in 435 flavors, after all. But we cannot afford to dilute our strength by supporting every alternative. The Republican leaders of this House are satisfied with the current system. They stand for the power of big money and against change. They don't want Meehan-Shays or any other effective reform bill to pass. The Republican leadership brought up this bill and many others as a roadblock to reform. They aren't interested in a debate; they are interested in deadlock. They want to run down the shot clock so that Congress will be unable to deliver the slam-dunk of campaign reform for the American people. The majority of Democrats, and I believe, the majority of Congress, rejects the status quo. We understand we have reached a critical point in the history of our democracy. We need to take the first serious step to clean up our politics. If we fail to take this first step, our democracy will drown in the fast-rising tide of campaign cash. Campaign reform is the art of the possible--and Meehan-Shays is the best possible bill. We must keep our single-minded focus. We must reject any alternative to Meehan-Shays, no matter how much we agree with it. I urge the supporters of this Amendment to vote ``present,'' and to redouble our efforts to pass Meehan-Shays.

Mr. GEPHARDT

Mr. GEPHARDT. Mr. Speaker, I rise today as a cosponsor and strong supporter of this legislation, but I do not think that it is the proper time to be holding a vote on this bill. I believe it is premature to act today on this legislation. The intention in writing this bill was to influence the Russian Government's policy regarding the transfer of sensitive missile technology to Iran. This bill sought to demonstrate to Russia's leaders that we take these transfers very seriously and that we expected them to as well. The development of ballistic missiles by Iran poses a threat not only to U.S. forces in the Middle East, not only to Israel and other U.S. allies in the region, but to Russia's national security as well. There is evidence that Russia's leaders have received the message of this bill and have begun to address our concerns. The Russian Government has taken a number of steps to prohibit such exports and is working to implement measures that will effectively prevent them from occurring, but it needs to do more. I believe that we must have action to stop these exports, not simply words and decrees. The Russian Government needs to convince us in a clear and comprehensive manner that it is exerting a 100 percent effort to prevent these transfers. After an intense dialogue between some of our Nation's most senior diplomats and their Russian counterparts, we may be on our way to finally achieving this goal. In the past few months, we have begun to see evidence of Russia's leaders moving to close off channels of cooperation with Iran. That is why I am concerned with the timing of this legislation today. The passage of this bill would, in effect, demonstrate an admission of defeat, that we have failed to influence Russia's government to this problem, and we are, instead, resorting to sanctions against individual companies that have engaged in these dangerous exports. I am not ready to admit defeat. It is too early to throw in the towel, and neither is our closest ally in the Middle East. Two weeks ago I visited Israel and met with Trade Minister Nathan Sharansky at his request regarding the transfer of missile technology from Russia to Iran. Minister Sharansky had just returned from Moscow where he had discussed this matter with senior Russian officials. Minister Sharansky made two key points to me. First, he urged that the United States continue to press the Russian Government to take effective and tangible steps to stop the flow of missile technology to Iran. Second, he urged that we give the key players in the Russian Government an opportunity to implement what he thought were important measures to address this problem. After visiting Israel, I then went to Moscow myself to discuss this and other issues with Russian officials. I met with Russia's new Security Council Director Andrei Kikoshin, who explained to me that the transfer of missile technology to Iran is as much a threat to Russia as it is to the United States or any other country in the world. He then described the steps that he and the Russian Government are taking to stem the flow of technology to Iran and laid out plans for additional steps in the immediate future. Minister Kokoshin will visit Washington next week and has asked to meet not only with administration officials, but also with congressional leaders to update us on his government's actions to address our mutual concerns about these dangerous exports. I also understand that in 2 weeks United States and Israeli intelligence officials will meet to compare information on the status of missile exports to Iran and to assess the effectiveness of steps the Russian Government is taking to stop them. With all of these activities taking place right now, I am concerned that the passage of this legislation today will signal to Russia that we care more about sanctions than we do about the efforts it has made to address our concerns. Passage of this bill would suggest that we do not want to work with them on cooperative efforts to stop future transfers, but, rather, are content to impose penalties on past transfers. It could very well create unintended obstacles for the efforts of Russian leaders to implement the very export controls needed to stop the flow of technology to Iran. I also met with leaders in the Russian Duma, the Speaker of their Duma, the Deputy Speaker of the Duma. They both said that they were undertaking to pass legislation in the Duma that would be consistent with export flow legislation that has been passed by all of the G-8 countries. I had hoped that we could monitor developments on this issue over the coming few weeks and then make an informed and reasoned determination about how to proceed. That is what I understand our friends in Israel wanted us to do as well. Consequently, I will be compelled to vote present today as an expression of my personal view that a vote on this bill today is premature. Let me be very clear in conclusion, we may have to enact this legislation in the very near future if our collective judgment is that Russia is not taking adequate steps to address this issue. We do not want to repeat our experience with China where, despite repeated assurances to the contrary, they continued to proliferate missile technology to unstable or rogue regimes. We will not repeat those mistakes when it comes to Russia. We must act decisively in the event that the Russian Government is unresponsive to our concerns. But I do not believe we are able to make such an informed judgment today.

Mr. GEPHARDT

Mr. GEPHARDT. Did I not hear, can I ask the gentleman, that Federal employee cuts were restored in the last few minutes?

Mr. GEPHARDT. If the gentleman will further yield, Mr. Chairman, I will say that Senator Domenici called this budget a mockery. That is what has happened today on the floor with this budget.

Mr. GEPHARDT. Can I ask the gentleman if the agriculture research money we voted for last night was there?

Mr. GEPHARDT. Mr. Chairman, this budget is our common sense vision, our road map for a new century and a new economy. Our budget rejects the misguided and extreme policies and priorities of this Republican slash-and-burn budget and comes up with a moderate and responsible alternative. The Republican leadership has put forward a budget that is so unfair and unwise that it is already dead on arrival. It is unacceptable, not only to many Democrats, but also to many Republicans as well. I have been amused to hear the answers to questions about the budget. There is so little specificity because no one seems able to put the specificity behind the budget that it needs. So we hear, ``Well, that problem will be handled in conference.'' Translated, that means we are going to have the Domenici budget, I suppose, because everything is going to get settled in conference. This Republican budget is expired milk poured into new cartons. It is more of the same fiscal radicalism based on the same irresponsible cuts which the American people specifically rejected in the election of 1996. Do not be fooled. This budget that we are voting on in the next few minutes is the same budget that we had in 1995 from the Contract on America. The Republican path steers us into a dead end, where American families fend for themselves and are at the mercy of the global marketplace. They want to withdraw from our commitments to education, to health care and the environment, key areas critical to the future of our country and the prosperity of our people. Democrats are united behind a different vision, the vision contained in the Democratic alternative. We want to build upon the economic success that we currently enjoy, a success that owes a lot to the Democratic budget of 1993, a budget that we passed without one Republican vote in the House or in the Senate. If it were up to the Republicans in Congress, we would not have made the wise and prudent fiscal choices that have brought about the strongest economy that we have seen in decades in this country. We have more work that still needs to be done. Democrats want to meet the challenges presented to us by the changing economy and workplace. Government must play a limited, but critical role in ensuring that the growth we currently enjoy continues and its benefits are widely shared by all working families. While Republicans talk about protecting Americans and their retirement, their budget threatens the safety and integrity of Social Security. The Democratic budget ensures that any surplus will be used to protect the foundation of retirement security for all Americans. While Republicans talk a lot about the breakdown of the American family, the Democratic budget does something to actually address the problem. The Democratic budget makes a commitment to an act, the Patients Bill of Rights Act, so that families will receive the health care they need and pay for. Our budget makes the investments in child care, which will enable Americans to balance the needs of their families with their demands from work. The Democratic budget makes the smart investments in education that we desperately need to modernize and upgrade our public schools so our kids receive the knowledge and the skills they need to compete in a world marketplace. While the Republicans profess to care about preserving the environment, their budget makes drastic cuts in environmental protection. Democrats are fighting to safeguard our natural heritage by increasing the funding of toxic waste cleanups and expanding parks and open spaces. The Kasich budget has been repudiated by moderate Republicans. It has been renounced by the gentleman from Delaware (Mr. Castle). It has been ridiculed by Pete Domenici, and it should be rejected by this Congress. I urge my colleagues to support the Spratt substitute, the only honest and responsible budget alternative that has been before us.