Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, let me thank Mr. Rangel for yielding me this time.

There is no question that we need to clean up our Tax Code. We need to make it predictable. We need to deal with expiring provisions. I would hope that we would deal with the savers' credit that is scheduled to expire because that helps low-wage workers, and we need to deal with that.

I would hope that we would adjust the Federal estate tax and make the changes permanent, but I cannot support this bill.

This bill is fiscally irresponsible. By the chairman's own account, the Joint Tax Committee estimates that it will cost us $283 billion that we do not have. That $283 billion is basically in the second 5 years of the program because we already have a law in place now. So the annual loss of revenue is close to $60 billion a year. There is no offset to that loss.

To the credit of a Marylander who contacted me and wants to see a permanent change in the estate tax, that person at least had enough courage to suggest offsets so that we would not be adding to the deficit of the country, but this legislation does not do that. It is fiscally irresponsible.

Mr. Speaker, it speaks to our priorities. Yes, we have time to deal with estate taxes that will benefit basically people who have wealth in excess of millions of dollars, but we do not have enough time to deal with increasing the minimum wage that has been stagnant now for the last 10 years, people making $5.15 an hour. Where is the priority of this Congress?

We have time to take up the reform of the estate tax, but we cannot deal with college education costs and a tuition tax credit that was allowed to expire. Where is our compassion for people who really do need our help? Two hundred eighty-three billion dollars for the wealthy, nothing to help people who are trying to struggle with a college education.

How about the doughnut hole in Medicare? We know seniors cannot afford it. How about using some of that money to deal with the Medicare prescription drug bill, or how about paying down our deficit?

I would hope that both Democrats and Republicans would agree that our first priority should be to pay down our deficit. The problem, Mr. Speaker, is that we are not dealing with the problems of typical families. Instead, we are dealing with those who do not need the help.

I urge my colleagues to reject this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay special tribute to the National Baptist Convention, USA, which opens its 101st congress today in Baltimore. An estimated 50,000 members will attend this convention, making it one of the largest conventions hosted by the city of Baltimore.

The National Baptist Convention, USA, is the Nation's oldest and largest African-American religious convention, with a membership exceeding 7 million people. This convention is a great pillar of African-American tradition and history.

It is especially fitting therefore that the inauguration of this convention falls on June 19th. Today is the 141st anniversary of Juneteenth, the national celebration commemorating the end of slavery in the United States. The convention is a prominent example of the power of faith, freedom, and compassion. I am pleased that the convention has taken a very active role in responding to the tragedy caused by Hurricane Katrina in New Orleans.

I wish the convention a wonderful week in Baltimore. I appreciate the choice of my hometown--which has a very special role in African American history--as the site of their convention. I know that members of the convention will enjoy their time in Baltimore, and that Baltimoreans will enjoy serving as hosts.

I urge my colleagues in the House to join me in saluting the National Baptist Convention of Christian Education for its proud tradition and noble service to the community.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay special tribute to an outstanding Maryland philanthropist, diplomat and journalist. It also is with great sadness that I join many Marylanders in mourning the loss of Philip Merrill, chairman of the Capital-Gazette Newspapers.

Philip Merrill was a visionary who understood the importance of education and the environment. Throughout his life, Philip appreciated what it meant to give back to his community. His philanthropic gifts included $10 million to the University of Maryland College of Journalism, $4 million to the Paul H. Nitze School of Advanced International Studies of Johns Hopkins University and $7.5 million to the Chesapeake Bay Foundation.

A Baltimore native, Philip graduated from Cornell University in 1955. In 1968, while working for the U.S. Department of State, he purchased what was then the Annapolis Evening Capital, now known as The Capital. Over the years, Capital-Gazette Communications, Inc. expanded to include the Maryland Gazette, the Bowie Blade-News, the Crofton News- Crier, and the West County News. He also owned Washingtonian Magazine.

But Philip didn't limit himself to the field of journalism. He served as President of the U.S. Export-Import Bank from 2002 to 2005, Assistant Secretary-General at NATO from 1990 to 1992, and a member of the U.S. Department of Defense Policy Board from 1983 to 1990.

An avid environmentalist and boater, Philip loved the Chesapeake Bay and worked hard to preserve and protect it for future generations. He was instrumental in building the Chesapeake Bay's Philip Merrill Environmental Center, one of our nation's most environmentally sensitive buildings and a model for the future.

Mr. Speaker, I call upon my colleagues to join me in honoring the memory of Philip Merrill a publisher, diplomat, philanthropist and environmentalist who strove to make our world a better place.

Mr. Speaker, from the beginning, the Bush Administration's policy on Iraq has been based on distortions and misjudgments. Prior to the invasion, I fought to prevent this war. I parted with most members of Congress and cast a vote against the resolution authorizing the use of military force in Iraq. The President misled the American people into believing there was a link between Iraq and the terrorist attacks of September 11.

I understand the frustration and heartbreak that have led many Americans to conclude that it is now time for us to remove ourselves from this misguided quagmire and bring our troops home. That is why I have called on the President to change course. America simply cannot continue indefinitely to pay the high costs in both lives and dollars to stay on the same failed course in Iraq.

In December 2005, I voted for H.R. 1815, the FY 2006 Defense Authorization bill, which the President signed into law in January 2006. Section 1227 of that bill, United States Policy on Iraq, states that it is the sense of Congress that ``calendar year 2006 should be a period of significant transition to full Iraq sovereignty, with Iraqi security forces taking the lead for the security of a free and sovereign Iraq, thereby creating the conditions for the phased redeployment of United States forces from Iraq.''

It is time for the President to implement this policy. We should not have American troops in the middle of a civil war. President Bush is wrong to say that we should stay the course in Iraq. We need a new direction in Iraq.

The President must present a strategy to Congress to draw down American troops from Iraq and return them home to their families. This strategy must ensure that our National Guard troops are the first to come home, as they were never intended as our primary force for overseas military missions. We need our National Guard troops to be home and available for our local needs.

Military experts have recommended a drawdown of 10,000 troops per month. Although we should not announce a specific timeline for troop withdrawal, it is reasonable to expect that we should have half of our combat troops home by the end of 2006, and all of our combat troops home by the end of 2007. Even with such a drawdown of American troops in Iraq, this supplemental appropriations is necessary in order to insure the proper funding of our military operations during such a drawdown.

Bringing our troops home allows us to achieve certain necessary objectives. First, we will bring our troops home safely to their families and remove them from being in the middle of a civil war. Second, we should send an important message to the Iraqi government to take responsibility for their government--after they ratified a new constitution, held elections, and installed a new government--because American troops cannot and should not remain in Iraq indefinitely. Third, we would remove a powerful propaganda and recruitment tool for Al Qaeda that the United States is an occupation force. Fourth, we would be able to stage our troops outside of Iraq to work with our allies and the international community to fight the war against international terrorism. The repositioning of our troops would help us to regain our focus on the war on terror. Finally, bringing our troops home would help us preserve the strength of our all-volunteer military by improving troop morale and boosting our efforts to improve recruitment of new soldiers.

I have repeatedly called for a change in America's policies so that we can bring our troops home as soon as possible. In December 2004, I visited our troops in Iraq. I thanked them for their service and listened to their stories. It was a moving experience for me. I honor the sacrifices they and their families are making each day.

The men and women of our armed forces are demonstrating tremendous dedication to our nation through their performance in Iraq. These brave soldiers have put their lives in harm's way for our country, and we are forever grateful for their service.

This bill also contains crucial provisions, which I support, that would provide nearly $20 billion for Hurricane Katrina relief, including funds for housing, community planning and development, flood control, and small business loans. In addition, the House should take up H.R. 4197, a comprehensive Hurricane Katrina recovery bill introduced by the Congressional Black Caucus.

I am encouraged that the bill provides nearly $500 million to address the ongoing genocide in southern Sudan and Darfur. These funds are critical to meeting the immediate needs of victims of the Darfur crisis, such as shelter, health care, and access to water and sanitation. Sudanese government-backed Arab militias have slaughtered hundreds of thousands of villagers, and they have burned entire villages. Up to two million refugees have fled this genocide to neighboring countries, but the small, poorly-equipped, and underfunded African Union (AU) force cannot offer them adequate protection. This bill provides needed funding to help transition the AU peacekeeping operation to a United Nations mission. It is also encouraging that in April the House passed H.R. 3127, the Darfur Peace and Accountability Act, which I co-sponsored, and which I urge the Senate to take up without delay.

Mr. Speaker, this emergency supplemental is a necessary measure that will provide essential support for our troops in their arduous mission in Iraq, vital funding for the global war on terror, and desperately needed assistance for our own Gulf region and the many Americans who have been uprooted by Hurricane Katrina.

Mr. Speaker, it is right for Congress to ask the President to implement a plan to start bringing our troops home from Iraq. That would be the right message to send to the Iraqis: they must assume the responsibility for security of their own country.

Congress needs to have a real and meaningful debate on the future role of the U.S. military in Iraq as we approach the fourth anniversary of the congressional authorization to use force in Iraq. Congress should take seriously its obligation to oversee our military.

The majority has given us one option with this resolution, which is to make a political statement in support of President Bush. The House leadership has refused to allow amendments to this resolution. It is interesting that we are committed to building democratic institutions in Iraq but we are not willing to let the Members of Congress vote on alternative policies in Iraq. Our men and women in uniform that are putting their lives on the line every day deserve the full attention of Congress.

Mr. Speaker, we all agree with those parts of the resolution that: honor Americans who have taken part in the global war on terror, including our first responders, diplomats, military, and intelligence officers; honor the sacrifices of American, Iraqi, and Afghan military forces, and the families of those troops; congratulate the Iraqi people for holding free and fair elections, under a new democratic constitution; supports the efforts of the Iraqi and Afghan people to live in freedom; and declares that the United States will prevail in the global war on terror.

We should be debating whether or not and how to withdrawal or redeploy United States Armed Forces from Iraq, and members should be permitted to offer amendments to this resolution. We should not simply be asked to ``stay the course.'' Congress must reclaim its oversight responsibility and ask serious questions about the Iraq war and reconstruction effort.

I am convinced that we must change course. The repositioning of our troops would help us to regain the focus on the war on terror.

The President came to Congress in October 2002 and asked Congress to authorize force against Iraq. I voted against giving the President this authority, and parted ways with most of my colleagues in Congress. This was not a popular vote at the time, but it was the right vote. I was proud of my vote then as I am now.

I have remained an outspoken critic of President Bush's policies in Iraq. There was no connection between the events of 9/11 and the Saddam Hussein regime. The Bush Administration distorted and misused intelligence information about Saddam Hussein's actual

WMD capacity. Saddam Hussein did not have nuclear weapons, and did not pose an imminent threat to the United States.

During our debate in 2002, I stated on the House floor that I had ``grave concerns'' about a unilateral, pre-emptive military attack by the United States which could ``endanger our global coalition against terrorism.'' I also stated that ``we cannot overlook the massive cost and effort that the United States would have to undertake in a post- Saddam regime.'' Finally, I stated that ``the United States will need the help of its allies as it attempts to transition Iraq from a dictatorship to a democracy.'' I regret to say that I was correct on all these counts.

The President prematurely disbanded the Iraqi security forces. After overthrowing Saddam, the President protected the oil ministries, but not the weapons and ammunitions depots, which were looted by insurgents and are now being used to attack American forces. The President did not provide the heavy armor needed for our troops and equipment. The President did not plan for an insurgency. Finally, the President invaded Iraq and then attempted to reconstruct Iraq without seeking any significant assistance from the international community.

We have paid a heavy price. More than 2,500 American soldiers are dead. More than 18,000 American soldiers have been injured. We have spent over $300 billion to date on the Iraq war and reconstruction.

Mr. Speaker, in December 2004 I visited Iraq as part of a Congressional delegation. I wanted to see the situation on the ground in Iraq firsthand. It is an experience that I will not soon forget. I thanked our troops for their service, including troops from Maryland and from our Maryland Guard and Maryland Reserve. Our troops have performed with honor and distinction and have done everything that we have asked of them. Our troops deserve to come home to their families and a grateful nation.

Yet the President still says that we must stay the course. We need to immediately change course in Iraq, which must include the drawdown of U.S. troops from Iraq. We currently have approximately 130,000 troops in Iraq, roughly 20 percent of which are Guard and Reserve troops. Military experts have recommended a drawdown of at least 10,000 troops a month. It is not necessary for us to announce a specific timeline for the withdrawal of our troops. It is reasonable to expect, however, that one-half of our combat troops should come home by the end of 2006, and that all of our combat troops should come home by the end of 2007.

We should make sure that our National Guard are the first to come home, as they were never intended to be used as the primary military force for overseas conflicts. Our Guard units should be made available for local needs.

The drawdown of American troops from Iraq back home will allow us to achieve certain necessary objectives. First, we will bring our troops home to their families, and take them out of the middle of a civil war. Our soldiers should not be used as police officers. Second, we will send an important message to the Iraqi government to take responsibility. U.S. troops cannot remain in Iraq indefinitely. Third, we will remove a powerful propaganda and recruitment tool for Al Qaeda that the United States is an occupation force. Fourth, we would be able to stage our troops outside of Iraq to work with our allies and the international community to fight the war against international terrorism. The repositioning of our troops would help us to regain the focus we have lost on the war on terror. Finally, bringing our troops home would help us preserve the strength of our all-volunteer military by improving troop morale and boosting our efforts to improve recruitment of new soldiers.

The United States should convene an international conference on Iraq which would include the government of Iraq. As the sole remaining superpower, the United States needs to mend diplomatic fences. Such a conference should achieve three primary goals. First, it should produce a verifiable cease-fire. Second, it would establish a mechanism for the completion of the training of Iraqi security forces. Finally, it would coordinate all international humanitarian and reconstruction assistance to the new Iraqi government.

Finally, we must honor our commitment to our military and veterans' families, which will strengthen our recruitment efforts for new troops. Our volunteer military is in danger. The morale of our troops is suffering due to longer tours of duties and budgets that have not fully funded veterans' benefits, particularly in meeting their health care needs.

Our recruitment efforts have fallen short in the military, as both the Army National Guard and Army Reserve have only met roughly 80% of their recruiting goals.

The answer is the proper deployment of our troops, and the full funding of our veterans' benefits, particularly their health care needs. These benefits are particularly relevant considering we have 18,000 wounded veterans so far as a result of the Iraq war. We must also bear in mind that estimates indicate that 50,000 war veterans will experience battle fatigue and post traumatic stress disorder, PTSD, and will require extensive treatment and rehabilitation.

Mr. Speaker, I call on the President to immediately change course in Iraq, including the implementation of a plan to start bringing our troops home from Iraq.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to claim the time of the gentleman from Oregon.

Mr. Speaker, I call upon the President of the United States to present a plan to Congress to start bringing our troops home from Iraq.

It has been almost 4 years since the President came to Congress and sought the use of force in Iraq. At that time, Mr. Speaker, I voted against giving the President the use of force. It was not a popular vote in my congressional district, but it was the right vote. I was proud of my vote 4 years ago, and I am proud of my vote today.

I have remained an outspoken critic of the President's policies in Iraq. There was no connection between Iraq and the attack on our country on September 11. There was no evidence of any weapons of mass destruction or nuclear weapons, and other weapons information was distorted. There was no direct threat against the United States.

We have paid a heavy price for the war in Iraq. Over 2,400 soldiers have died, 18,000 have been injured, and we have spent $300 billion- plus of taxpayer money.

Our international standing has suffered. In December 2004, I visited the troops in Iraq. I wanted to see firsthand what was happening in Baghdad. My experiences I will not soon forget. I thanked our soldiers for their service to our country. They deserve to come home to their families and a grateful Nation.

A lot has changed in Iraq. It has been 3 years since the Saddam Hussein regime fell. It has been 2 years since an interim government was formed and the sovereignty of Iraq was transferred to that interim government. It has been 15 months since the first elections in Iraq. Iraq has a new constitution. They have elected a permanent government.

In December of 2005 we went on record in the defense authorization bill that 2006 should be a year of transition in which the Iraqi security forces take control of their own security. That has not happened.

It is time to change the policies in Iraq, and yet the President still says let's stay the course. We need a new direction in Iraq. That direction should include the drawdown of American troops. We have 130,000 soldiers serving in Iraq. 20 percent are from our National Guard and Reservists. Military experts have recommended a drawdown of 10,000 troops a month.

Although we should not announce a specific time schedule, it is reasonable to expect that one-half of our combat troops could be home by the end of 2006, and all of our combat troops home by the end of 2007. It should start with our National Guard. They were never intended to be the primary coverage for a military operation. We need them home to meet local needs.

This would allow us to achieve certain necessary objectives, bringing our troops home to their families and not in the middle of a civil war. It is an important message to the Iraqi government that they cannot assume that American soldiers will be there indefinitely to take care of their own security needs. It would remove propaganda for al Qaeda in which they look at the United States as being an occupation force, and it allows us to stage outside of Iraq to work with our allies and international community to fight international terrorism. We have lost our focus in the war against terror. It would help us preserve an all- volunteer military.

We also need to organize an international conference, including the Iraqi government and our friends internationally. The United States is the only superpower. We need to mend our diplomatic fences. We need to engage the international community. It is in their interest to help us in Iraq, to create a ceasefire for the Iraqi government and its militia, train the security forces, and coordinate humanitarian aid and infrastructure assistance.

We need to honor our commitment to our military veteran families and strengthen troop recruitment. The voluntary military is in danger because of excessive deployments. Morale is down because of long tours of duty and our failure to live up to our commitments on veterans' benefits.

The recruitment goal in 2005 was missed by 6,000, and our National Guard and Reservists have only hit 80 percent of their goal. The answer is the proper deployment of our military and honoring our veterans, commitments on benefits, including health benefits, so that the 18,000 who are returning injured from Iraq and the 50,000 who we anticipate will have battle fatigue related issues are dealt with as we have promised.

Mr. Speaker, I call upon the President to change course in Iraq in order to further U.S. interests.

Mr. Speaker, it is with great honor that I rise today to commemorate the 25th anniversary of From the Heart Church Ministries. Since its beginnings in 1981 with only 24 members, From the Heart Church Ministries has provided spiritual guidance to the Prince George's County community through worship services and television and radio broadcasts.

Founder and Pastor Reverend John A. Cherry is a nationally acclaimed minister whose message of hope and committed spiritual teaching have changed the lives of many. Under his steady leadership, From the Heart Church Ministries has grown from its modest beginnings as a storefront church to one of the largest churches in Prince George's County, providing services to over 27,000 members. Reverend Cherry's spiritual message is also broadcast Sundays and during the week, providing religious guidance and teaching to thousands more.

Reverend Cherry's 25 years of service have established a foundation of strong biblical teaching rooted in faith and love--a foundation that his son, John A. Cherry II, will build upon. Reverend John A. Cherry, II will officially be installed as pastor during the anniversary celebration.

I urge my colleagues in the U.S. House of Representatives to join me today in recognizing From the Heart Church Ministries' 25th

Anniversary and applauding the accomplishments of Reverend John A. Cherry. His legacy of spiritual leadership will allow his son to continue his work and influence the hearts and minds of a faithful community for years to come.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today with my colleagues from Maryland: Roscoe Bartlett, Elijah Cummings, Wayne Gilchrest, Steny Hoyer, C.A. Dutch Ruppersberger, Chris Van Hollen and Albert Wynn to pay special tribute to America's first Catholic Cathedral, the Basilica of the Assumption in Baltimore, which has undergone a two-year restoration in preparation for its bicentennial celebration on November 4, 2006.

The Basilica was the first great metropolitan Cathedral in America and the first major religious building to be constructed following the adoption of the U.S. Constitution. The construction of the Basilica reflected a fundamental shift in how government viewed religious freedom--a shift from worship in an established church to worship that was based on the individual's choice and conscience. It stands as a reminder of America's openness to people of all faiths.

Designed by Benjamin Henry Latrobe, architect of the U.S. Capitol, the Basilica is considered an architectural masterpiece and one of the finest 19th Century buildings in the world. The Basilica in Baltimore, home to the country's first Catholic Archdiocese, is designated as a National Historic Landmark and National Shrine.

We commend the Archdiocese for undertaking a major restoration of this extraordinary religious and civic landmark. After decades of slow deterioration, the Basilica is finally being restored to its original grandeur. In the future, Americans of all faiths will be able to visit this historic treasure and reflect on its history and its place in our Nation's struggle for religious freedom.

We hope our colleagues in the House will join the Maryland Delegation in honoring the Basilica during its bicentennial year of celebration and in expressing our sense of pride that the Basilica is part of our Nation's history.

Mr. Speaker, earlier today, I was unavoidably detained and missed two rollcall votes.

Had I been present, I would have voted ``nay'' on rollcall vote No. 194 and ``nay'' on rollcall vote No. 195.

Mr. Chairman, I believe that we need comprehensive appropriations earmark reform. In the last 10 years, the number and cost of federal earmarks have spiraled out of control, from 4,000 in 1994--totaling 24 billion dollars--to more than 15,000 items last year, valued at more than 47 billion dollars.

Earmarks are out of control. We should reform the manner in which earmarks are approved by Appropriations and Authorizing Committees, with an eye toward increasing transparency and accountability.

But what we are voting on today is a series of amendments, chosen by one member, in an ad hoc, piecemeal attempt to reform the appropriations process one earmark at a time. While this is a useful exercise to point out the problem, having one member pick and choose among existing earmarks is as arbitrary as the underlying process.

I will fight for genuine, comprehensive appropriations reform, so that we can be truly open and accountable to our constituents.

Mr. Speaker, it is with great honor that I rise today to commemorate the 25th Anniversary of From the Heart Church Ministries. Since its beginnings in 1981 with only twenty four members, From the Heart Ministries has provided spiritual guidance Prince George's County community through worship services and radio broadcasts.

Founder and Pastor Reverend John A. Cherry is a nationally acclaimed minister whose message of hope and committed spiritual teaching has changed the lives of many. Under his steady leadership, From the Heart Ministries has grown from its modest beginnings as a storefront church to becoming one of the largest churches in Prince George's County, providing services to over 26,000 members. Reverend Cherry's spiritual message is also broadcast Sundays and during the week, providing religious guidance and teaching to thousands more.

Reverend Cherry's twenty five years of service have established a foundation of strong biblical teaching rooted in faith and love--a foundation that his son, John A. Cherry II, will build upon. Reverend John A. Cherry II will officially be installed as pastor during the anniversary celebration.

I urge my colleagues in the U.S House of Representatives to join me today in recognizing From the Heart Ministries' 25th Anniversary and applauding the, accomplishments of Reverend John A. Cherry. His legacy of spiritual leadership will allow his son to continue to his work and influence the hearts and minds of a faithful community for years to come.

Mr. Speaker, earlier today, I was unavoidably detained and missed three rollcall votes.

Had I been present, I would have voted ``no'' on rollcall vote No. 160; ``no'' on rollcall vote No. 161; and ``yea'' on rollcall vote No. 162.

Mr. Speaker, as Ranking Member of the Commission on Security and Cooperation in Europe, the Helsinki Commission, I note that tomorrow marks one of the major events in the struggle for human rights around the globe. Thirty years ago a courageous band of human rights defenders in the Soviet Union founded the ``Moscow Helsinki Group,'' dedicated to monitoring Soviet compliance with the Helsinki Final Act, an historic agreement containing important provisions on human rights.

When General Secretary Brezhnev signed the Helsinki Final Act, or the Helsinki Accords, on August 1, 1975 on behalf of the USSR, Soviet officials believed that they had gained an important foreign policy victory. Indeed, there were some provisions that Soviet diplomats had sought assiduously during the negotiations among the thirty-five nations of Europe and the United States and Canada. However, the West, for its part, had insisted on certain provisions in the area of human rights and humanitarian affairs, including the right of citizens ``to know their rights and to act upon them.''

With this commitment in mind, Professor Yuri Orlov, a Soviet physicist who had been involved in the defense of human rights in the Soviet Union previously, called upon several of his similarly-minded colleagues to join together in an organization to press publicly for implementation of the Helsinki Accords in their country.

Eleven brave individuals answered the call, and on May 12, 1976, at a press conference called by famed human rights campaigner and peace activist Dr. Andrei Sakharov, the creation of the ``Public Group to Assist in the Implementation of the Helsinki Final Act,'' or as it became later known, the ``Moscow Helsinki Group'' was announced.

The Moscow Helsinki Group committed itself to collecting information about implementation of the Helsinki Accords in the Soviet Union and publishing reports on their findings. During the first six years of its activity, they produced almost two hundred specific reports, as well as other announcements and appeals. More activists joined with the passing months. Similar Helsinki monitoring groups were established elsewhere in the USSR, including in Ukraine, Lithuania, Georgia and Armenia. Other groups focused on specific human rights issues such as psychiatric abuse or religious liberty joined the movement. The Moscow Group became an important source of information for individuals and groups seeking assistance in the area of human rights.

Naturally, the Soviet leadership rejected such ``assistance'' and undertook to suppress the Moscow Helsinki Group. Members were fired from their jobs, ``persuaded'' to emigrate, castigated in the press, and subjected to KGB searches and interrogations. When such reprisals proved mostly ineffective, members were charged with political crimes and given lengthy sentences in labor camps of the Soviet Gulag, usually with an additional term of ``internal exile,'' forced resettlement, typically somewhere in Siberia or the Soviet Far East.

Ten years after the founding of the Moscow Helsinki Group, 14 members had been sentenced to a total of 69 years in labor camp or prison, and 50 years internal exile. Anatoly Marchenko, a founding member and veteran dissident, died during a hunger strike at Chistopol Prison in December 1986. By 1982, the Moscow Helsinki Group had been forced to suspend its activities in the face of intense KGB repression.

But while Moscow had rid itself of some troublesome dissidents, the spirit of Helsinki was not so easily quashed. Ludmilla Alekseyeva, an exiled member of the group, testified in the U.S. Congress in October 1985 that ``for victims of human rights abuses in the Eastern bloc, Helsinki remains the main source of hope . . . and a rallying point in their struggle for freedom and peace.'' Just a little over 4 years after she spoke those words, the Berlin Wall fell.

The Moscow Helsinki Group was re-established in 1989. Reinvigorated through the work of new and veteran members, it is one of the most respected human rights organizations in the Russian Federation today. Alexeyeva, who returned to Russia in the early 1990s, following the demise of the Soviet Union, serves as chair of the group.

Mr. Speaker, we would do well to heed the wise words of Andrei Sakharov when he noted, ``The whole point of the Helsinki Accords is mutual monitoring, not mutual evasion of difficult problems.'' A key to the ultimate success of the Helsinki Process has been the involvement of civil society--courageous human rights defenders like those who established the Moscow Group--willing to speak out on behalf of others. I remain deeply concerned over human rights trends in Russia, especially the adoption of regressive laws affecting fundamental human rights and freedoms.

I join my colleagues on the Helsinki Commission in congratulating the Moscow Helsinki Group on the occasion of its 30th anniversary of dedicated service in the defense of fundamental freedoms and liberty.

Mr. Speaker, let me speak on behalf of our children and our grandchildren.

Mr. Levin pointed out our national debt, the actual debt now is $8.3 trillion, $28,000 per person in this country. What we have is a birth tax, and we are adding to that birth tax.

This bill, as advertised, adds another $70 billion or $69 billion to the debt, but when you look at it, it is much higher because we are using gimmicks again. We remove the income ceiling on Roth IRAs, and we count that as a revenue gain of $6 billion when we know, in fact, it will lose revenue for the Treasury to the tune of $1.3 trillion a year.

So we are using gimmicks and we are going deeper and deeper into debt. We are doing this for what? Why do we not have offsets?

You look at the extension of dividend exclusion, the dividend exclusion does not end until 2008. Why do we not work out a program to pay for these extensions?

We tell our students they have got to pay more for their college education, and that we are not going to provide the relief because we do not have the money.

We tell our veterans we cannot provide the health care that we promised them because we do not have the money in the budget; but the tax cuts, that do not expire until 2008, we can put in this bill, knowing full well it is going to add to the deficit of the Nation.

Where is fiscal responsibility? Why are we not looking after our children

and grandchildren? Why are we adding more debt to what they are going to have to pay? We could have a responsible bill that deals with the alternative minimum tax, that deals with selective inequity that we have in the Tax Code, and we could pay for every dime of that tax cut, as we should, so we do not add to the deficit of the Nation.

In the last 5 years, we have accumulated more debt held by foreign countries of U.S. debt than in the first 225-year history of America. It is a matter of national security that we pay our bills.

This bill moves in the wrong direction. I urge my colleagues to reject it.

Mr. Speaker, I must tell you that I agree and have been talking to my seniors that they need to, and I quote, ``review carefully all the options that are available to them and determine whether enrollment in a Medicare prescription drug plan best meets their needs.''

I have had over 30 town hall meetings since this bill has been enacted, and at these meetings I have had people from our Office on Aging to help seniors go through the different options to make a decision whether they need or they don't need to join a plan and which plan they should join.

But, Mr. Speaker, the problem is, the information that was made available to them when this bill was passed was wrong. The information is extremely confusing. In my State we have 47 or 48 different plans with deductibles that range by great numbers, and it is very difficult for my constituents to understand this bill.

I have gotten e-mails from people in Maryland who tell me the bill is very confusing, and they should at least be allowed more time to make a decision. I got e-mails saying that this one constituent is going to make a decision, but he is not sure whether it is right or wrong because he needed more time and he doesn't have that time.

So, Mr. Speaker, yes, we want our constituents to make the right decision, and we urge them to focus in on making the right decision, but it is absolutely wrong that we are not extending the May 15 deadline. Our constituents need more time, and we certainly shouldn't be imposing a lifetime penalty because a senior perhaps makes the wrong decision in part because of our failure to get the right information to our constituents.

Mr. Speaker, I would have hoped that we would be using the time now to correct this bill. This bill is structurally flawed. We need to make this a real benefit within Medicare. We need to take on the cost of prescription drugs. We need to deal with the coordination of the benefits with retiree benefits so that retirement plans don't terminate retirees' prescription drug coverage. We need to do all that.

We need to cover drugs that aren't covered today. I could tell you of a person in my district, Barbara Waters, who had her drugs for epilepsy covered before this bill was passed, and now it is not covered because it is under a class of drugs not covered under Medicare. We need to correct that. There is a whole group of organizations that are urging us to correct the bill.

So I appreciate the fact that we have a resolution on the floor urging seniors to focus on what is in their best interests under the law we passed, but what we should be doing is having a bill on the floor giving our seniors more time, eliminating this penalty and then correcting the mistakes that we made when we passed this bill.