Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I am going to first answer my friend, the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Jefferson), and he is my friend. I deeply respect his views as to why we would oppose this agreement when we supported the other agreements that he mentioned.

The gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel) is correct. In the 18-plus years that I have been honored to served in this body, I have voted for all of the free trade agreements. This will be the first agreement that I will vote against.

This is the first agreement in which we actually move backwards on advancing international labor standards. Currently, with the Central American countries, we had the Caribbean Basin Initiative. The Caribbean Basin Initiative has worked. It has provided opportunity for the Central American countries. It has opened up markets for their products. They get preference. But in order to get that preference, they must move towards international labor standards. That is the requirement.

We use the threat of withholding trade benefits if they do not adopt international labor standards. That is what we currently have with Central American countries, and it is working. We have made progress. CAFTA repeals those obligations. As the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Jefferson) said, what is in place is enforcing your own rules without any adequate enforcement.

We have a constitutional responsibility, Mr. Speaker, to approve or reject this free trade agreement. Trade opens up opportunity, not only for the United States but for the countries that we do business with.

I represent the Port of Baltimore. I am very much in favor of free trade. I would have liked to have had a CAFTA agreement that I could support.

The standard of living in the CAFTA nations is not as high as previous agreements that we have approved for Chile, Singapore, Morocco, or Australia. So for people living in poverty, trade if properly structured holds out the promise of a more meaningful economic opportunity and a better way of life in providing markets for our products.

But in order for that to occur, we must move the ball forward on protecting labor rights, workers' rights. That is our responsibility. That should be our priority. This agreement moves backwards. We have a constitutional responsibility to make a judgment on this.

I do not know how we can support an agreement that moves us in the wrong direction. I do not expect miracles from our negotiators. But I certainly expect that they will adhere to priorities. I certainly expect that they will not give up something that the other countries have not asked us to give up.

You start to worry when you see those types of provisions in an agreement. Mr. Speaker, this could have been corrected. We made changes in the CAFTA agreement for textiles. We could have made changes for these labor provisions. We could have kept the Caribbean Basin Initiative protections; but, no, we did not do that. We could have done it. If we would have done it, we could have had strong bipartisan support for this legislation, as trade bills should be considered.

This CAFTA agreement is not good for the United States. It is not good for the Central American countries. I urge my colleagues to exercise their constitutional responsibility, as I am, and vote against this agreement.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel) for yielding me this time.

Mr. Speaker, normally the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. English) and I are on the same side when it comes to antidumping and countervailing duty bills. Both of us have a strong desire to make sure that our antidumping laws and countervailing duty laws are enforced, particularly as it relates to our manufacturing industries. We differ on this bill.

This bill purports to move forward and clarify the use of countervailing duty remedies against nonmarket economies, but it establishes two new loopholes that will make it difficult for industry to get relief. It is already difficult for industry to get relief. This bill will make it more difficult.

I find it difficult how people can understand our debate here today. These are very complicated issues talking about double counting. I would like to have a debate with the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. English) in regards to problems of double counting. These are complex issues. This bill is on the suspension calendar. We cannot even offer any amendments or substitutes. We are limited to 40 minutes of debate. That is not the way we should be talking about a major issue concerning our relationships with nonmarket economies and our trading rules.

This bill does address some specific issues, but does not address the problems. As it deals with countervailing duties, it creates two new problems for cases to be filed.

In regard to currency manipulation by China, an issue that many of us have talked about on this floor, what does this bill do, it sets up another study by the Treasury Department. We already know what they are going to do. They have already reported back to us. We need action.

In regard to the use of safeguards, no action in this bill.

International property violations, no action in this bill.

In regards to the loophole Chinese exporters have to avoid paying duties, it provides a temporary 3-year provision rather than permanently fixing the action.

Despite what the gentleman from Pennsylvania said, there is no new money in this bill in order to enforce our laws. We have already gone through the appropriation process what this bill purports to do through the suspension calendar.

Mr. Speaker, we should be able to consider H.R. 3306 introduced by the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel). That bill would fix the countervailing duty problems we have with nonmarket economies such as China. It would allow us to take action against Chinese manipulation of currency. It would allow action to be taken in regards to the safeguards that we have negotiated with China on the WTO accession agreement. It would provide permanent relief in regards to the loophole that Chinese exporters are currently using to avoid duties.

That is the legislation we should be able to consider, at least through amendment, but we cannot because of the process that is being used here. The bottom line is this legislation actually creates more problems in industry being able to bring antidumping or countervailing duty actions, and we should not be making it more difficult. It is already too difficult for industries to get the type of relief that they desire. We should have a full and open debate on our relationship with nonmarket economies. This legislation does not allow us to do it. I urge my colleagues to reject the suspension.

Mr. Speaker, I oppose the underlying bill for many reasons. Fundamentally, it violates the concept of federalism that is embodied in our Constitution, respect for our States, and the ability of our States to be able to regulate public safety issues and health issues for the people of our States.

This legislation would preempt the ability of my State and your State to protect the rights of our own citizens through regulation. That is wrong. That is the wrong usurpation of power by the Federal Government.

This underlying legislation would adversely affect the people of Maryland, and let me tell you why. Our legislature has passed small market reform. People who work for companies that are between two and 50 employees have the opportunity to purchase insurance, affordable health insurance in Maryland as a result of our small market reform. The passage of this legislation will mean the end of the small market reform and the opportunity to purchase insurance by small employers in my State. That is wrong.

We are going to be moving in the wrong direction with making affordable health insurance available for the people of this Nation.

Mr. Speaker, I want you to understand the Insurance Commissioner of Maryland is a Republican. The Governor of Maryland, who opposes this bill, is a Republican. This should not be a partisan issue. This should be a matter about the appropriate use of the Federal authority and it is being used wrong here.

I congratulate the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Kind) for his substitute which is sensitive to the rights of our States. I hope Members will support the substitute and reject the underlying bill.

Mr. Speaker, as a member who is dedicated to protecting the rights of Americans who have health insurance and to ensuring that opportunities to secure affordable health insurance can be expanded, I rise in opposition to H.R. 525. Since coming to Congress, I have heard frequently from individuals who work in small business. They have spoken to me about the difficulties that result from a lack of health insurance coverage, skyrocketing premiums, and reductions in benefits. I remain committed to developing solutions that will alleviate the hardships faced by many Maryland families and small businesses.

However, the Association Health Plan (AHP) legislation we are considering on the House floor today is not a viable solution. H.R. 525 would exempt AHPs from State laws and State regulatory oversight. Through this special exemption, AHPs would be able to severely undermine the goal of greater health care access and affordability for Maryland residents. Although some supporters of this legislation claim it will benefit small employers, the reality is that H.R. 525 will only hurt the small business community.

H.R. 525 would leave the Maryland insurance commissioner powerless to protect our citizens. Under this misguided bill, unregulated out-of- state AHPs could operate in Maryland without being required to comply with health care safeguards enacted by our state legislature, such as:

Appropriate access to emergency care. The right to independent appeal of denied claims, Fair insurance premiums for small groups, Consumer marketing protections, Prevention of health plan failures due to insolvency.

Under this legislation, my constituents would not only lose their ability to demand an independent review of denied claims, but they would lose guaranteed access to important benefits such as emergency medical treatment and mammography screenings. Workers who purchase association health plan coverage--believing that they are getting comprehensive insurance--may very well find that they would still have to shoulder the costs of these essential services.

Not only would this bill be harmful to potential subscribers, it would destroy the small group market reforms already in place in Maryland. Twelve years ago, my home state of Maryland took a major step toward helping small businesses afford health insurance for their workers. Our reforms guarantee the availability of reasonably priced, comprehensive health insurance for all small employers. Specifically, Maryland requires all health insurers to sell a comprehensive standard benefit package designed by an independent commission to all employers with between 2 and 50 employees. The plan must have benefits that are actuarially equivalent to those required to be offered by federally qualified HMOs, and the average cost cannot exceed 12 percent of Maryland's average annual wage. Insurers have the option of offering additional benefits, but they must be priced separately. Insurers must use adjusted community rating to price their plans, and they cannot impose pre-existing condition limitations. The Maryland plan not only guarantees the availability of reasonably priced insurance, it also makes it easier for small employers to make ``apples to apples'' comparisons of health costs throughout the state.

Due to these reforms, more Maryland small businesses offer health care coverage to their employees than in any surrounding states or in the nation as a whole. Maryland's system is one in which healthy subscribers subsidize those who are less healthy. These reforms work because insurers are not allowed to ``cherry pick'' the businesses that have the healthiest workers. Association health plans have been outlawed in our state. The association health plan legislation before us would undermine our system by using the lure of lower premiums to attract firms whose workers have fewer health problems, firms whose employees might be willing to forgo some of the consumer protections offered under Maryland law. Businesses with older, sicker employees would remain in the state system, driving up premiums. H.R. 525 would, in effect, lead to the collapse of Maryland's system. I want to emphasize that this is not a partisan issue--AHS's are opposed by my own governor, our former colleague Robert Ehrlich, and by the National Governors' Association, and the National Association of Insurance Commissioners. I will submit for the Record an April 19 letter from Alfred Redmer, Maryland's Insurance Commissioner, expressing his opposition to H.R. 525.

This bill would be devastating on a national level, as well. The non- partisan Congressional Budget Office found that premiums would increase for 20 million employees and their dependents who are covered through small firms, and that 100,000 of the sickest workers would lose coverage altogether if this AHP legislation were enacted.

Passage of this legislation would be a disservice to every worker, every family, and every small business in Maryland. H.R. 525 fails to provide meaningful help for the uninsured, denies access to affordable health care for older, less healthy groups, and undermines the crucial consumer protections that our General Assembly has enacted. For these reasons, I urge my colleagues to vote against this bill.

Mr. Speaker, the following is a letter from our insurance commissioner who is opposed to H.R. 525:

Maryland Insurance Administration,

Baltimore, MD, April 19, 2005.

Hon. Benjamin L. Cardin,

House of Representatives,

Washington, DC.

Dear Congressman Cardin: As Commissioner of the Maryland

Insurance Administration I am writing to express my strong

opposition to federal legislation that would create

Association Health Plans, AHPs. I understand such

legislation, H.R. 525, has been passed, again, by the House

Education and the Workforce Committee and may soon come to

the floor of the House for a vote. H.R. 525 would allow AHPs

to form and operate in Maryland outside the authority of my

office and beyond the reach of proven State consumer

safeguards and solvency laws. If enacted into law, this could

do irreparable harm to our small group market and strip our

citizens of critical protections.

Altough I share the sponsor's concern for the growing

number of small business employees who cannot afford adequate

coverage, the fact is this legislation would do little, if

anything to address this problem. H.R. 525 ignores the root

cause of the current crisis--skyrocketing healthcare

spending. Unless spending is brought under control no

attempts to increase competition or enhance options for small

business will truly make insurance affordable and, thus,

promote coverage.

Even more troubling is the harm the legislation would do to

consumers, H.R. 525 would: (1) permit risk selection thereby

creating opportunities for ``cherry-picking'' among healthier

groups; (2) allow inadequate capital standards and solvency

requirements, both of which are inferior to existing State

standards; (3) eliminate proven State consumer protection

laws, including those designed to allow consumer appeals of

adverse plan decisions and those aimed at preventing and

fighting fraud; and (4) allow AHPs to ignore State benefit

requirements. To add insult to injury, while longstanding

State oversight and consumer protections would be eliminated,

H.R. 525 provides no additional resources to the Department

of Labor to regulate AHPs or help consumers.

I remain committed to improving access to affordable

insurance for small business owners and workers in Maryland.

Together, we can find solutions that will be effective and

not lead to greater problems in the future. H.R. 515 is

clearly not the answer and I urge you to oppose it.

Sincerely,

Al Redmer, Jr.,

Insurance Commissioner.

Mr. Chairman, since 1990 the Hubble Space Telescope, HST, has inspired scientists and students' alike. Unlike ground-based telescopes, HST is uninhibited by the Earth's atmosphere and therefore uniquely suited to capture images from distant space with high image clarity. HST allows us to look further back in time to the universe's earliest days.

By design, the Hubble Telescope requires regular servicing missions. These missions have occurred in 1993, 1997, 1999, and 2002, and the mission scheduled for 2004 was postponed after the Columbia Shuttle tragedy. Servicing missions allow us to repair broken parts of the telescope and to add additional components that improve viewing abilities by ten degrees or more.

Our next servicing mission would repair three faulty gyroscopes that failed in April 2003. Without this mission, HST will continue to operate in degraded mode. There is only a 50 percent chance that HST will be in operation past March 2007 without a servicing mission. Beyond 2007, the chance for continued operation of HST declines significantly.

On January 16, 2004 former NASA Administrator Sean O'Keefe informed workers at the Space Telescope Science Institute at Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore and NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center (which built Hubble and oversees STScI) that he was canceling SM-4, a Hubble Servicing mission, because the shuttle would not have the International Space Station as a safe haven. The implication was that shuttles that have the ISS as a safe-haven are safer, but this claim is not supported by NASA or STSI experts.

I am pleased to see Congress respond to this decision, and to authorize a Hubble servicing mission in the near future. Section 302 of base bill takes into consideration the recommendations of the National Academy of Sciences, and states that ``it is the sense of the Congress that the Hubble Space Telescope is an extraordinary instrument that has provided, and should continue to provide, answers to profound scientific questions . . . all appropriate efforts should be expended to complete the Space Shuttle servicing mission. Upon successful completion of the planned return-to-flight schedule of the Space Shuttle, the schedule for a Space Shuttle servicing mission to the Hubble Space Telescope shall be determined, unless such a mission would compromise astronaut safety.''

I urge my colleagues to support this important legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize Dr. Barbara R. Heller, Rauschenbach Distinguished Professor of Nursing and Executive Director, Center for Health Workforce Development, University of Maryland, Baltimore for her many years of service to the citizens of Maryland, and to commend her for her leadership and unwavering commitment to help alleviate the shortage of nurses and allied health care workers.

The Center for Health Workforce Development at the University of Maryland is dedicated to analyzing and understanding health workforce issues, dynamics and trends with the goal of translating knowledge derived from research and evaluation studies into policies and programs to enhance the nursing and health workforce. Since its inception in 2002, the Center has produced documentation of the extent of the nursing shortage in Maryland; sponsored interdisciplinary consensus conferences on seeking solutions to nursing and health workforce shortages in acute and long term care; collaborated in the development of innovative nurse retention initiatives; and designed and implemented a model AmeriCorps Health Care Volunteer Service Program to train a cadre of skilled volunteers who are assigned to serve as auxiliary health care workers in hospitals and nursing homes. This program aims to lessen critical nursing and health workforce shortages and augment service delivery to patients while at the same time establishing an educational pipeline that encourages AmeriCorps members to pursue nursing and other health careers.

Dr. Heller has more than 30 years of academic and administrative experience. She served as Dean of the University of Maryland School of Nursing from 1990 until 2002, and previously held senior academic administrative posts at Villanova University in Pennsylvania, and the State University of New York. Her past experience also includes an inter-governmental personnel assignment at the Clinical Center, National Institutes of Health; a Congressional Fellowship in the U.S. House of Representatives; an appointment to the Commission on Health, Montgomery County, Maryland; as well as service as a member of the Board of Directors of the Southern Council on Collegiate Education for Nurses; the Board of Governors of the National League for Nursing; and the Board of Directors of Hadassah Medical Organization in Jerusalem. She currently serves as a member of the Boards of Directors of the Washington Hospital Center and Nurses Educational Funds, Inc.; as a member of the Greater Baltimore Health Subcommittee; as well as my Health Care Advisory Committee. She is an alumna of Leadership Maryland, Class of 1996; the 1998 class of the Robert Wood Johnson Executive Nurse Fellows Program; and has been named to the Circle of Excellence of Maryland's Top 100 Women.

Mr. Speaker, it is for her dedication to the pursuit of academic excellence and her contributions to improvements in nursing and health care that I rise to thank Dr. Heller. Nurses across the Nation and the people of Maryland are in her debt. I ask my colleagues to join me today in recognizing Dr. Heller's accomplishments and thanking her for her service to Maryland.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 3199, the USA PATRIOT and Terrorism Prevention Reauthorization Act of 2005.

Following the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001, Congress undertook a review of Bush Administration proposals to strengthen our laws relating to counterterrorism. Congress passed the Patriot Act in October 2001--which I supported--recognizing that it needed to give law enforcement the proper tools to effectively combat new terrorist threats. The law took account of new changes in technology that are used by terrorists, such as cell phones, the Internet, and encryption technologies.

The original Act gives federal officials greater authority to track, intercept, and share communications, both for law enforcement and foreign intelligence gathering purposes. It vests the Secretary of the Treasury with regulatory powers to combat corruption of U.S. financial institutions for foreign money laundering purposes. It seeks to further close our borders to foreign terrorists and to detain and remove those within our borders. It creates new crimes, new penalties, and new procedural efficiencies for use against domestic and international terrorists. Indeed, the PATRIOT Act gives federal prosecutors many of the same tools to use against terrorists that Congress has already granted them to use against drug traffickers, for example.

The original Act also creates judicial safeguards for e-mail monitoring and grand jury disclosures; recognizes innocent owner defenses to forfeiture; and entrusts enhanced anti-money laundering powers to those regulatory authorities whose concerns include the well being of our financial institutions.

Congress did not grant all of the authority the President sought in the first Patriot Act, and sunsetted much of the Act's authority in 2005. Many of the wiretapping and foreign intelligence amendments sunset on December 31, 2005. The sunset provisions require Congressional oversight because Congress must take an affirmative action to keep these provisions in effect. I believe that Congress should exercise greater oversight of the use of new authority under the PATRIOT Act, as I have some misgivings about the Administration's use of the new powers under the PATRIOT Act.

Over the past few years I have continued to insist on greater oversight by Congress of the Justice Department as it executes its new powers. I am pleased that the Committee includes sunsets for two provisions: access to business and other records, and roving wiretaps. I support additional sunsets for other provisions in this legislation such as the ``sneak and peek'' provision which allows delayed notification for search warrants--and I am hopeful that the House will ultimately adopt the additional sunsets approved by the Senate Judiciary Committee when this bill returns from conference committee.

I am disappointed that the House leadership did not make in order amendments that would have: exempted library and bookstore records from Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) searches; reformed the roving wiretap authority in FISA cases to contain the same privacy safeguards as roving wiretaps in criminal cases; established the traditional FISA standards for search warrants; required individual suspicion for records orders; allowed citizens to challenge secrecy orders in records requests; and extended the sunset clauses for numerous other provisions of the Patriot Act.

I voted in favor of a number of bipartisan amendments to limit the Justice Department's power and increase Congressional and judicial oversight of the executive branch, including: requiring the FBI Director to personally approve searches of library or bookstore records; additional reporting to courts by law enforcement when they change surveillance locations under a ``roving wiretap''; allowing recipients of National Security Letters to consult with an attorney and challenge the letters in court; and increasing reporting requirements and making it more difficult to obtain ``sneak and peak''

search warrants, which entail secret searches of homes and offices with delayed notice.

We must not repeat the mistakes of the past, when the United States sacrificed the civil rights of particular individuals or groups in the name of security. Whether in times of war or peace, finding the proper balance between government power and the rights of the American people is a delicate and extremely important process. It is a task that rightly calls into play the checks and balances that the Founders created in our system of government. All three branches of government have their proper roles to play in making sure the line is drawn appropriately, as we upheld our oaths to support the Constitution.

I support H.R. 3199 but I hope as this legislation works its way through Congress, we will include sunsets on the provisions we are reauthorizing, so that Congress will continue to oversee the executive branch's use of these new powers.

Mr. Speaker, on June 24, 2004, this House passed a Resolution, H. Res. 695, honoring Mattie J.T. Stepanek and his ``braveness, generosity of spirit, and efforts to raise awareness of Muscular Dystrophy.''

Today I am pleased to note the June 18, 2005 groundbreaking for the Mattie J.T. Stepanek Park at King Farm, to be constructed on the corner of Crestfield and Piccard Drive in Rockville, MD. Dedicated to a young man whose courage and vision for peace provide an example for all, his park will become a favorite for Maryland residents and visitors.

A young poet who was diagnosed with neuromuscular disease known as dysautonomic mitochondrial myopathy, Mattie Stepanek achieved international recognition when his collection of poems, Journey Through Heartsongs, which reached the New York Times Best Seller List in 2002. Mattie also authored four other books of poetry. He served as the National Goodwill Ambassador for the Muscular Dystrophy Association in 2002, 2003, and 2004, and in 2004 the Jerry Lewis MDA Telethon was dedicated to him. Mattie also befriended Oprah Winfrey, and was featured often as a guest on her television program.

One of his goals was to meet his hero, former President Jimmy Carter. When Mattie was hospitalized in September 2001, he got his chance. Nurses and staff recall that during their 15-minute conversation, Mattie did not discuss his illness with President Carter, focusing instead on problems affecting developing nations.

The former President and Mattie developed a close friendship, and when Mattie passed away on June 22, 2004 at the age of 13, President Carter delivered a eulogy in which he recalled winning the Nobel Peace Prize. ``Mattie shared the honor that I had received,'' he noted.

Mattie was a gifted poet, and a great companion to his mother, Jeni Stepanek. Mattie's sister, Katie, and his two brothers, Stevie and Jamie, died in early childhood from the same disease Mattie battled.

Plans for the 26.2-acre memorial park include a statue of Mattie with his golden retriever, Micah. The park will plan activities specially designed for people with disabilities, and it will host an event each year for local schools in the spirit of Mattie's passion for peace.

Mr. Speaker, Mattie was a child filled with compassion and imagination. He won the respect and friendship of a President and Nobel laureate, who continues to call Mattie the ``most extraordinary person whom [he has] ever known.''

No one who met Mattie Stepanek could ever forget him. Now future generations of Marylanders--who will not have that opportunity--will be able to visit Mattie's park, celebrate his life, and enjoy the sunsets he loved so much.

Madam Chairman, I thank the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos) for yielding me this time.

I want to congratulate the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde) for his many years of service to this institution, again bringing forward a well-balanced bill. I want to thank him and the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos) for the Foreign Relations Authorization Act for fiscal years 2006 and 2007.

Madam Chairman, I want to bring up two provisions that are in this authorization bill that relate to the work of our Helsinki Commission. I note that the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith) is on the floor, our chairman. I work with him as the ranking Democrat, and over the last several years we have raised priorities for the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe through our Helsinki Commission, and I am very pleased that this authorization bill carries out those priorities.

First let me point out that the bill authorizes $225,000 annually for the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe's Office of Democratic Institutions and Human Rights and $125,000 annually for general religious freedom programs that are administered by the OSCE Office of Democratic Institutions and Human Rights.

This carries out a commitment that our commission brought forward in fighting anti-Semitism and developing international meetings to deal with strategies to combat anti-Semitism. This authorization will help us accomplish those goals. These are important initiatives.

I must point out that, although we have made progress, there is a lot more that needs to be done, and I am confident that by this authorization we will have the tools, at least in our country, to see to the implementation of these commitments. H.R. 2601 regrets the lack of implementation by many of the OSCE participating states and their commitments to track and report on anti-Semitic crimes and hate crimes. In the last Congress I was pleased to join with the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos) and the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith), Helsinki Commission chairman, in working to enact the Global Anti- Semitism Review Act of 2004. So I want to commend the chairman and the ranking member for authorizing resources in this bill to deal with that.

The second point I would just mention very briefly is the fact of expressing concern about restitution of property taken during the Nazi era in Poland. I appreciate that also being included in this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, let me thank the gentleman from Washington (Mr. McDermott) for yielding me this time.

Mr. Speaker, I must tell you, I am extremely disappointed. In 2002, the TANF law expired. This is the tenth temporary extension. These are missed opportunities. The Democrats believe that we should extend the TANF bill. But we should stop trying to micromanage from Washington, one size fits all, and we should provide resources necessary for our States to be able to lift American families out of poverty.

Our objective in TANF reauthorization should be to lift families out of poverty, yet the bills that have passed this body that the chairman of the committee has referred to fails to incorporate lifting families out of poverty as a core requirement of TANF.

We should be providing education and training to the mothers leaving welfare so that they can move up the economic ladder, yet the bills that have passed this body have restricted our States in their ability to provide education and training to the people on welfare.

We should be providing safe and affordable child care so that families can, in fact, move up the economic ladder and accept employment opportunities. Yet the bills that have passed this body have provided inadequate funds for child care. We have provided more mandates, $11 billion more needed in child care alone, yet the bill that passed this body provides only $1 billion, an unfunded Federal mandate. We can do better.

If we really want to lift families out of poverty, let us sit down now. Stop stalling. Let us work together, Democrats and Republicans, so that we can have a TANF reauthorization bill that will help American families out of poverty rather than the bills that have passed this body that will step backward.

Mr. Speaker, let me just point out to the gentleman from California, we have worked together when he was chairman and I was ranking member. I would just urge the gentleman to sit down and try to work out a bill that represents the views of all people of this country and all 435 Members of this distinguished body.

I would point out very clearly that, the last time I checked, the Republicans controlled both the House and the Senate and the White House since 2002, and yet we have been unable to pass a TANF reauthorization bill.

Stop placing blame. Let us sit down and work together. Give us a chance to sit at the table, and you are going to have a much better bill that will help American families escape poverty and will give the resources necessary to the States so that they can get the job done and will provide safe and affordable daycare, child care for the families that need it.

In my own State of Maryland, the only way you can get child care is to go on welfare. That is the wrong message. Let us get it done right.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this resolution and urge my colleague to vote for its passage.

Article 2 of the Genocide Convention, quoted in the text of this resolution, defines genocide as ``any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, such as: (a) killing members of the group; (b) causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; (c) deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part; (d) imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group; (e) forcibly transferring children of the group to another group''. Genocide is defined as the commission of acts with that intention whether or not the acts succeed or are completed. The word ``prevention'' is also in the title of the Genocide Convention. While not specifying what could be done or obligating countries to do any specific thing, clearly genocide must be defined as something taking place and not as something necessarily accomplished. If accomplished, it is too late to prevent it.

When I look at this definition and then hear what happened in Srebrenica 10 years ago, I can only agree with the Appeals Chamber at the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia, which confirmed in April 2004 that the crime of summarily executing almost 8,000 men and boys at Srebrenica alone meets the legal definition of genocide. The Appeals Chamber, in which an American is the presiding judge, concluded in a decision appealing a conviction that ``the law must not shy away from referring to the crime committed by its proper name . . . The Appeals Chamber states unequivocally that the law condemns, in appropriate terms, the deep and lasting injury inflicted, and calls the massacre at Srebrenica by its proper name: genocide. Those responsible will bear this stigma, and it will serve as a warning to those who may in the future contemplate the commission of such a heinous act.''

Twenty-three people have been indicted for genocide by the Hague. Regardless of individual guilt or innocence, the acceptance of the legitimacy of the charges is a recognition that genocide occurred. Indeed, if it is accepted that Srebrenica itself was genocide, then we must consider the 20-30,000 non-Serbs killed in the Prijedor region, which gets less attention mostly because it took place over a 6-month period rather than a week, especially given that the crime was committed perhaps by some of the same people and certainly under the same command. Similarly, we must consider the more than 10,000 killed and 50,000 wounded by the sniper fire and an average of over 300 shells per day fired into the city Sarajevo in the more than 3-year siege of that city--a crime again committed by perhaps some of the same people and certainly under the same command. We must consider what happened in Foca and Brcko. When we add all these and other places together, we must conclude that genocide occurred.

This, of course, does not mean that Serbs were not also victimized, nor does it mean that all Serbs are somehow guilty for what has been done in their name. But today, it is entirely appropriate that we focus on what happened in Srebrenica, and to put Srebrenica in the context of the larger Bosnian conflict. It is also an important time to urge the authorities in Belgrade, who have made considerable progress this year, to finally complete their cooperation with the tribunal. Serbia must transfer Ratko Mladic and other at-large indictees to the Hague immediately, so that this issue no longer holds Serbia back from taking on a more prominent role in Europe.

I urge my colleagues to support the passage of this important resolution.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to the life of a true patriot. Known simply as ``Jake,'' James Jarrell Pickle served in the House of Representatives for 32 years where he became a senior Democrat on the Ways and Means Committee--where I had the pleasure of serving with him.

While in Congress, his dedication to the concerns of his constituents as well as putting their interests first made Jake a well respected figure on Capitol Hill. Publicly listing his home phone number and personally taking calls from his constituents well into the night, Jake embodied accountability in governance. His political drive was so focused that it is said that he lost 25 pounds during his first Congressional campaign.

The strength of Jake's political convictions can best be seen in his vote in favor of the Civil Rights Act of 1964--one year after his first election. Jake was convinced that this vote would guarantee him a ticket out of Washington in his next election. Regardless of this potential outcome, he became one of only seven southern Representatives to vote for this important piece of legislation, and the good voters of Texas' 10th District sent him back to Congress for the next 31 years.

As the Chairman of the Ways and Means Subcommittee on Social Security, Jake played a major role in writing legislation that saved Social Security in 1983, when, much like today, it faced financial challenges. His words then calling for bipartisanship ring true today-- Jake said, ``We should hold our fire. We can't inflame this subject. If we inflame it too much, nothing will get done, and if nothing gets done, the American people will have the right to throw us all out.'' One year later, Jake was influential in preserving Social Security benefits for the disabled.

Before he entered Congress, Jake served in World War II as a Gunnery Officer on the USS St. Louis and the USS Miami. During his three year stint, starting in 1942, Jake survived three torpedo attacks. Clearly he was meant to make it back. When he returned home, he established Austin, Texas's third radio station, KVET.

When I was first elected to the Ways and Means Committee, Jake helped me understand the great tradition of that Committee. Once, our Committee held a retreat in Austin, Texas, and Jake entertained us for hours with Lady Bird Johnson, telling us story after story. Jake served his District and Nation well, and he will be missed by all of us.

Madam Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos), the sponsor of the resolution, the ranking member of the Committee on International Relations; and I want to congratulate him for his strong leadership and consistent leadership on human rights issues in this body.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Madam Speaker, as the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos) has pointed out, June 19 marked the 60th birthday of Aung San Suu Kyi, who has dedicated her life to bringing about democracy in Burma and was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in 1991.

Her party, the National League of Democracy, won a landslide victory in the country's 1990 elections; but the results were not recognized by the ruling Burmese military junta. Unfortunately, Ms. Aung San Suu Kyi, who has spent 10 out of the last 16 years in confinement, could not celebrate her birthday with her friends and supporters. Instead, she remains under house arrest.

The plight of Aung San Suu Kyi is a sign of how little things have changed in Burma. According to the U.S. State Department's March 2005 report to Congress on conditions in Burma and U.S. policy toward Burma, ``prospects for meaningful political change and reform in Burma have continued to decline.''

The Government of Burma continues to harass and arrest people for taking part in peaceful political activities; more than 1,200 people remain in jail for their political beliefs. The State Peace and Development Council, the controlling military junta, has continued to severely abuse its citizens' human rights. Freedom of speech, press, religion, assembly, and association remain greatly restricted. In ethnic minorities areas, the Burmese Government has engaged in persecution, torture, extrajudicial executions, demolition of places of worship, rape, and forced labor.

Security forces regularly monitor the movements and communications of residents, search homes without warrants, and relocate people forcefully without compensation or legal recourse.

In light of Burma's continued dismal record in respecting human rights and suppressing democracy, I urge my colleagues to extend the ban on imports on Burmese products for another year. The utter disregard of the Government of Burma for the rights of its citizens cannot be ignored.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I urge support of this resolution, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to Bill Fine, who is leaving his position as President and General Manager of Baltimore's WBAL-TV to return to Boston, where he will become Executive Vice President and General Manager, and, in 2006, President of WCVB, a station where he worked as Sales Manager before coming to Baltimore.

Baltimore's loss will be Boston's gain, as Bill has been a pillar of our community. He has selflessly volunteered his time and energy to numerous charitable causes, including the Chesapeake Region 2012 Olympic Coalition and the Cystic Fibrosis Foundation. Through these efforts, Bill has established himself as a true civic leader.

At WBAL, he transformed the station into ``the leader in nighttime news'' in Baltimore. Under his leadership, WBAL won the Peabody Award in 2004, the most prestigious award in broadcasting, for its reporting on Chesapeake Bay pollution. WBAL was also named as one of the ``Ten Stations That Do It Right'' by MediaWeek Magazine in 2001.

Bill's accomplishments have been recognized by his peers as well. Baltimore Magazine named him Baltimore's ``Best CEO'' in 2000 and he was selected as one of the ``25 Leaders We Most Admire'' by Baltimore Smart CEO Magazine in 2005. Bill Fine was also awarded the American Advertising Federation's ``Silver Medal Award'' in 2004, in recognition of his ``Outstanding Contributions to Advertising.''

I hope my colleagues in the U.S. House of Representatives will join me in saluting Bill Fine's exemplary record of leadership and service to the Baltimore community. We will miss his presence in our city and we wish him all the best in Boston.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to be here today to celebrate the 140th Anniversary of Juneteenth Day. Today we remember the events of June 19, 1865, when Major General Gordon Granger led his Union troops through Galveston, Texas, to spread the news of the Emancipation Proclamation. This was more than two years after President Lincoln issued this directive. Initially celebrated by African Americans who had been slaves in the southwest, Juneteenth Day officially commemorates the ending of slavery in the United States.

This important anniversary represents how far we have come as a nation. With an emphasis on freedom, education, and achievement, Juneteenth Day recognizes the ending of one of the most sinister periods in our Nation's history and the beginning of a new era of liberty, not just for the slaves that were freed, but for all Americans.

Today, a growing number of Americans celebrate Juneteenth Day. People of all faiths, races, and creeds from cities and towns across our country are gathering together to both rejoice in the progress this Nation has made and reflect upon how much work there is still to be done. We celebrate this day by spending time with our close friends and family, enjoying ourselves and listening to others.

In my own district in the State of Maryland, Juneteenth Day is being observed at Fort McHenry. In addition, on June 22nd, the members of the Boys and Girls Club of Central Maryland will re-enact the events of that historic day.

By celebrating this holiday, we recognize the progress that this Nation has made in advancing the fundamental values to which we, as a country hold true--life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

I call upon my colleagues to join me in celebrating this monumental day. Juneteenth Day has become part of the fabric of this Nation's history, and deserves to be acknowledged and celebrated.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay special tribute to Charles W. Simmons, Ph.D., founder and president of Sojourner-Douglass College, Maryland's only independent institution of higher learning specifically focused on educating African Americans.

Like Sojourner Truth and Frederick Douglass, for whom the college is named, Dr. Simmons has devoted his life to helping others obtain the education and skills necessary to succeed both professionally and personally. Through his efforts, Sojourner-Douglass College has helped thousands of working adults become confident, self-reliant community leaders and decision-makers.

Dr. Simmons served in the U.S. Marine Corps and graduated from Antioch College. After graduating from college, he dedicated his life to empowering African Americans through education. In 1972, he established the Homestead-Montebello Center of Antioch College with just 13 students in donated space in east Baltimore. In 1980, the school was accredited under a new name, Sojourner-Douglass College. Today, it serves more than 2,000 students in locations throughout Maryland, as well as in Nassau, Bahamas.

Because of Dr. Simmons' vision, many more African American adults have obtained the skills necessary to improve not only their own lives, but the communities in which they live.

I urge my colleagues in the U.S. House of Representatives to join me in celebrating the achievements of Charles W. Simmons, Ph.D. His vision and commitment to the education and self-determination of African Americans is an inspiration to all who want to ensure that others have the opportunity to fulfill their potential.