Floor Statements

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

Mr. Speaker, let me thank my friend from Virginia for bringing forward this legislation which I support. I think it is a very important change in the flexible spending arrangements that are permitted under the Internal Revenue Code. And I thank the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Cantor) for bringing forward this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, as my friend has indicated, this bill would permit a taxpayer to carry forward up to $500 of unused benefits in a dependent care flexible spending arrangement from one year to the next plan year. The flexible spending arrangements are a way that you can use pretax dollars to pay for expenses that are, according to what the policy makers have determined, areas that we want to encourage our constituents to be able to spend. This is in dependent care expenses, to take care of our children. This is certainly an area where it is becoming more and more difficult for working families to be able to afford dependent care for their children.

The flexible spending arrangements allow them to use pretax dollars in order to offer some help and assistance. The problem with the flexible spending arrangements is that you have to determine at the beginning of the year how much money you are going to spend for dependent care. If you are wrong and you put away too much money, you lose that money. That is certainly a pretty harsh penalty for misjudging the amount of money that you will need for dependent care. And, therefore, this bill would allow a taxpayer to roll over up to $500 from one tax year to another. And it certainly makes sense to make this modification in our Internal Revenue Code.

Mr. Speaker, I might point out though that I am disappointed that we are not doing more, not doing more for dependent care in our society. In the committee that I serve on, the Committee on Ways and Means, we have looked at authorizing additional day care aid to our states. In my own state of Maryland the only way that you can get assistance on dependent care is to go on to cash assistance welfare. That does not make a lot of sense.

Prior to a year ago, we were helping working poor in our state with dependent care from the state government using Federal assistance. Well, we have not increased that Federal assistance. I would urge us to consider increasing the amount of dollars made available for safe, affordable day care for our constituents.

In the meantime, Mr. Speaker, I do support H.R. 4372. It is a step in the right direction. And I would encourage my colleagues to accept this bill.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, I support this legislation to extend the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, or TANF, program for the next 3 months. The bill will allow our States to continue to provide assistance to struggling families while also providing a variety of services to help people leave welfare for employment.

Additionally, this legislation would extend a number of important related programs, including transitional Medicaid which provides continued health care coverage for people leaving the welfare rolls to go to work.

Like the previous six welfare extensions passed by Congress over the last 2 years, this bill is a simple extension of current law. It does not include any of the controversial policy changes to the underlying program which were incorporated in the legislation that passed this body; and for not including those controversial provisions, I commend my friends on the other side of the aisle.

While I support this temporary extension, I wish we were here today, as the chairman of our subcommittee has said, to pass a long-term bill to help our States plan future efforts to move individuals from welfare to work. I, however, disagree with my subcommittee chairman in that the legislation that passed this body, in my view, and I think in the view of the experts in this area, makes it more difficult for us to accomplish the goal of a long-term extension of the welfare program.

The House-passed welfare bill was denounced by Governors, mayors, State welfare administrators, and poverty experts as an inflexible, unfunded mandate. The divisive debate instigated by the legislation has stymied a goal that should be bipartisan, extending the 1996 welfare reform law.

We are now on the seventh temporary extension of TANF funding. This process leaves the States uncertain about the future Federal funding levels and policy requirements, which in turn makes long-term or even intermediate range planning increasingly difficult for the State welfare programs.

Given this problem and the apparent deadlock on a broad reauthorization bill, the time is coming for Congress to pass a long- term continuation of TANF. For example, after this next extension expires at the end of September, Congress could extend the current law for 5 years. Mr. Speaker, considering how we on both sides of the aisle have hailed the success of the 1996 law, it is surprising to me why it is so difficult for us to at least use that as the building block, rather than as an area to impose new requirements on our States that are not funded by additional resources.

If we did extend the current law for 5 years, we could use that as a stepping-stone to debate other proposed reforms separately. At the very least, this step would ensure the continuation of a program that many of us have declared a success.

In the meantime, Mr. Speaker, I support the temporary extension of the welfare-related funding provided by the legislation currently before us. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds mainly to comment on the comments of my friend, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Shaw), in that I am one of those Democrats who supported the bill in 1996. It was a bipartisan bill. It was a good bill and it did move us forward. What is surprising to me is why the legislation that passed this body is so radically different, so prescriptive at the Federal level as to what the States must do; taking away the flexibility, putting in more mandates, and not providing the funds necessary in order to carry out the new responsibilities.

I am surprised that we moved in that new direction when we were moving, I think, in the right direction, and all we needed to do was fine-tune the 1996 law.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Woolsey).

(Ms. WOOLSEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, it is now my pleasure to yield 9 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin), a senior member of the Committee on Ways and Means.

(Mr. LEVIN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Davis).

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I think the comparison to how we proceeded in 1996 versus how we have proceeded in the year 2002, 2003, and 2004 is very instructive. In 1996, we had a President who ran for the Presidency saying that he would end welfare as we know it. He established three parameters for a new welfare bill, which were flexibility to our States, accountability, and resources. In 1996 in a bipartisan manner, we passed welfare reform with the support of our national Governors. In 2002 and 2003 and 2004, this body has passed legislation in a very partisan manner, without the support of our national Governors, for good reason.

The three pillars on which welfare reform was built in 1996 which has gotten such praise from both sides of the aisle are severely compromised by the legislation that passed this body.

First, on flexibility to the States, we take it away in the bill that we passed. We cannot use vocational education as the States would like to do, and I can name example after example.

On accountability, we have make shiftwork rather than real jobs, people moving up the economic ladder in the legislation that passed this body. And in resources we provide $1 billion only in new child care that is mandatory, even though the estimates are that the mandates in this bill will cost our States an additional $11 billion, an unfunded mandate.

So, Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this extension because it is clean. It has none of those extraneous issues in it. It extends the 1996 law for 3 additional months. And then I hope we will get back to working together as Democrats and Republicans for a long- term extension that builds on the success of 1996.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in tribute to a remarkable man from my district. Simon Avara has dedicated many years of his life to the betterment of the Baltimore community. He is an accomplished businessman and friend, as well as my own long-time barber.

In cities and towns across America, barber shops have come to be recognized as familiar gathering places that help create a sense of community. Following in his father's footsteps as a master barber, at the age of 16, Mr. Avara obtained his master license and opened his own shop.

While still a young man, he put his life's dream on hold to serve our Nation during the Korean War. When he returned to Baltimore, he began opening doors for others seeking to pursue a tonsorial profession. He has founded two schools, training a whole new generation of Baltimore barbers.

Today, I am placing in the Congressional Record an April 2004 article from RazorsEdge Magazine tracing Mr. Avara's career. I am pleased to have this opportunity to pay tribute to Simon Avara, a true pillar of our community.

Simon Avara: A Cut Above

(By Rebecca Mein)

``I see a man in a $600 or $700 suit dressed real well and

he has a bad haircut,'' says Simon Avara. He pauses and then

packs a punch. ``It spoils everything!''

After all, that ``everything'' only costs a man about a six

bucks if he visits one of Avara's two Baltimore barber

schools for a cut.

This 70-year-old master barber has spent nearly a lifetime

communicating that message to clients and customers alike.

He runs the International Academy of Hair Design on Pratt

Street in downtown Baltimore and Avara's Academy of Hair

Design in Dundalk.

You could say Avara was born into the business. In fact, as

a young boy, he never even had to leave his own house to get

a sense of what his father did for a living.

Back in the 1930's, he remembers seeing his father's

clients show up at he family's front door for a last minute

cut.

``The judges would knock on our door on Sunday mornings,''

he says. They wanted a fresh haircut before heading back to

the courtroom on Monday.

Avara's father had his own idea of a barber uniform--a

suit, a dress shirt, and a tie.

But back then, Avara had no idea that he would one day

follow in his father's footsteps.

Sadly, his father would never live to see his son pick up a

pair of shears. The older Avara died tragically in a car

accident.

Avara was just 14 years old at the time. Little did he

know, that summer, people would start coming to him for a

haircut.

It all started when a friend of a friend asked for a trim.

Within one year, he went from having no experience and no

interest to starting a barber school and landing his first

apprenticeship.

Only, his first apprenticeship was not quite the same

learning experience that he offers his students today. ``In

those days, you ran errands,'' he explains. ``They'd let you

shave behind the ears. I was persistent. I hung in there.''

That persistence paid off after a West Baltimore barber

gave him his first break. This is where Avara's story takes

an extraordinary turn.

``By the time I was 16, I passed the board and got my

master license. I was probably one of the youngest barbers in

the state.''

At just 16 years old, with one year of high school under

his belt and some used equipment in his possession, Avara

opened his own shop in a former funeral parlor.

He charged 60 cents for a man's cut and 40 cents for a

child. ``I was very young when this happened,'' Avara says.

``In everything I've done, I've been blessed.''

But then, came another twist of events. During the Korean

Conflict, Avara was drafted and had to leave his shop for the

service. While in Korea, Avara says he had time to think

about what he wanted to do when he returned to Baltimore.

He saw his options as either opening a first class salon or

opening a school. ``I had trained some people before I went.

I felt that then, and I still feel, that if you train them

right, a part of you will always live.''

When Avara returned to civilian life, he wound up making a

third choice. He attended cosmetology school in order to

improve his skills when it came to cutting women's hair.

Then, he decided it was time to open his own school. Soon

after, came another achievement. He became a member of the

Maryland State Board of Barber Examiners at age 26.

While in his early 30's he was elected to be president of

the National Barber Examiners.

He also served as secretary treasurer of all union-

affiliated barber schools in America. He is currently

president and founder of the Maryland Hair Designer's

Association.

Avara sees his profession as a way to open doors for people

from all walks of life. He believes that with some basic

reading and writing skills and people skills, anyone can have

a solid future in his field.

``You gotta like people,'' he says. ``If you don't like

people, don't even enroll in my school.''

Students in his school quickly gain hands-on learning

experience. He says by the end of the first week, every

student has gotten over the fear of cutting that first head

of hair.

As for his students' future job security, Avara has no

worries, even as technology continues to take over and take

away jobs in other industries.

``We never have to worry that there's a machine that could

take our place. You're never going to put your head in a

machine and dial the cut.''

Today, three of Avara's four adult children are trained in

the trade. His youngest son runs his Dundalk School.

Avara makes it a point to tell his students that the

leading hair stylists out there are all former barbers. ``We

really teach them how to cut hair, layer hair, and to do it

freehand. If you want to see a good man's haircut, look at

Cary Grant,'' says Avara.

Retirement is nowhere in this barber's immediate plans. He

plans to continue to pass on his profession to aspiring

barbers. Perhaps that is because Avara's job is not just his

profession; it is his life's passion.

It's what he does for recreation and relaxation. ``I love

it,'' he says. ``I have no hobbies. I have a set of golf

clubs in the garage. I'm not saying that I'll work every day

like I do now, but I can't sit around and visualize working

the boob tube. To be healthy, you have to be active and think

young.''

For Avara, that translates to continuing to hold a pair of

shears in hand. He estimates so far, he's cut a hundred

thousand heads of hair or more, and he's not planning to stop

anytime soon.

Mr. Speaker, if Congress was subject to the truth-in- advertising law, we would be held accountable for the title of this bill, American Jobs Creation Act, as misleading the American people. My colleagues can call it what they want, this bill will not create jobs or save jobs in this country. It will cost us jobs, and we know that.

This bill costs $34 billion, according to the Joint Tax Committee, over the next 10 years. It will add to the deficit of the country. That is certainly not going to help our economy, but the truth is it costs a lot more than $34 billion. Because of all the sunsets and the phasing in, this bill costs a lot more than that, hundreds of billions of dollars, which is just going to add to the national debt and cost us jobs.

Mr. Speaker, the tragedy is that we do have a problem with the World Trade Organization that we should correct. Legislation has been offered to do that on a revenue neutral basis, without adding to the deficit and helping U.S. manufacturers so we keep jobs here in America. That has been rejected.

So what do we have? We have a bill that is laden with special interest provisions, hundreds of special interest provisions, that have been given out, that have nothing to do with job creation, have nothing to with the underlying problem with the World Trade Organization and has everything to do with trying to pass a bill to help special interests. Then we have provisions in here that actually harm our country, such as the private contracting of tax collection functions. I cannot think of anything more basic to our government than collection of taxes, and now we want to have private collection agencies dealing with our constituents? I do not want to see that happen.

Mr. Speaker, this bill will not help create jobs. It will hurt us in keeping jobs in America. We should have done better. We should have corrected the problem. Let us go back and do that. I urge my colleagues to reject this bill.

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

Mr. Speaker, the fact that we are considering this bill for the second time does not make it any better. On behalf of the Democrats on the Committee on Ways and Means, we would like to point out that this bill will cost $23.5 billion over the next 10 years and add to the deficit of this Nation. Every dollar of relief provided in this bill will have to be borrowed; and we are going to have to pay interest on it, adding to the irresponsible economic program that the majority has thrust upon us.

Mr. Speaker, it is interesting to look at the evolution of this bill. The President had requested that an energy bill be passed that cost $8 billion. When we passed the bill originally in this body, it cost $17.8 billion. In the other body, they passed a bill that was $15.8 billion, but with set-offs, with revenue provisions. Now we have a bill that has grown to $23.5 billion.

The reason, quite frankly, Mr. Speaker, is that this bill contains numerous special interest provisions to provide breaks for different corporate interests. It is not an energy policy. It is a corporate giveaway in many respects. It does not reduce our dependency on imported oil. We should be doing a much more aggressive program on renewables and alternative fuels, but we are not. This bill does very little to make us energy self-sufficient. It does nothing. It is actually counterproductive. It does not deal with the electricity blackouts that we have suffered. It certainly is not environmental friendly; in fact, it hurts our environment.

This is why this bill has been labeled by many of the editorial writers, USA Today: ``Costly local giveaways overload energy plan.'' The Detroit Free Press: ``Wrong direction on national energy strategy. This country would be better off if they shelve this effort.'' Philadelphia Inquirer: ``Leaders are using the blackout as an excuse to try to ram through a bill that has been wrong-headed since the day it emerged.''

Mr. Speaker, this bill was not worthy of our support before; it is not worthy of our support today.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the remainder of my time be yielded to and controlled by the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell).

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to commemorate Flag Day, June 14.

Flag Day has a particularly special meaning this year, as many of our troops are serving overseas as part of the global war against terrorism. I stand behind our brave men and women who have performed admirably in Iraq, Afghanistan, and elsewhere around the globe. They have made tremendous sacrifices on behalf of their country and have served longer deployments than expected.

The Flag of the United States continues to stand for democracy and freedom throughout the world. The Continental Congress approved the design of a national flag 227 years ago today. The American flag, in its current form, first flew over the Capitol in 1818. The flag has been altered twenty-seven times over the years. The current version dates to July 4, 1960, when Hawaii became the 50th state.

Our flag symbolizes the union between the states and federal government, as we the people of the United States seek to form a more perfect union, as envisioned in our Constitution. Since 1916, when President Woodrow Wilson issued a presidential proclamation declaring June 14 Flag Day, Americans have

commemorated the adoption of the Stars and Stripes by celebrating this special day in our Nation's history.

Flag Day also holds a special place in the history of Baltimore, Maryland, which I am privileged to represent in the House of Representatives. In 1814 in Baltimore at Fort McHenry, this Nation, this young Nation, won its second war of independence. It was the beginning of the end of the War of 1812. Francis Scott Key 190 years ago wrote his inspirational poem that became our National Anthem.

As we continue our global war on terrorism, and face a continuing threat on our shores, Francis Scott Key wrote some words that are helpful for us on this Flag Day:

``From the terror of flight or the gloom of the grave.

And the Star-Spangled Banner in triumph doth wave.''

We survived the attack by a hostile power and became the strongest Nation in the world, and we will survive this attack on our democratic principles, and we will grow even stronger. Let us remember on this Flag Day the values we hold dear, and that we are willing to fight for--and even die for--these values of liberty, democracy and justice. Our flag will continue to symbolize this eternal struggle, as we seek to secure the blessings of liberty for our fellow Americans and for all humankind.

Mr. Speaker, I rise on behalf of the people I represent in the Third Congressional District to express my sincere condolences to the Reagan family and to memorialize our 40th President, Ronald Wilson Reagan.

I had the opportunity to serve for 2 years in the Congress when Ronald Reagan was President of the United States, and I also had the opportunity when I was Speaker of the State legislature to work with President Reagan on behalf of the National Conference of State Legislators.

Mr. Speaker, Ronald Reagan was one of the most effective Presidents in the history of our Nation. He brought an agenda of change to Washington, and he developed public support for that change and then congressional support for that change. He did it using the process, to bring about a change of policy and expectation of our country. He also established America as a world leader, proud of our commitment to democracy and willing to get involved in international events to bring about change for the good. He laid the foundation for the end of the Cold War.

As I said, Mr. Speaker, he was a remarkable President and will be missed by all.

On January 20, 1981, President Reagan spoke of his abiding commitment to a special interest group that has too long been neglected. It knows no sectional boundaries or ethnic and racial divisions, and it crosses political party lines. It is made up of men and women who raise our food, patrol our streets, man our mines and our factories, teach our children, keep our homes, and heal us when we are sick; professionals, industrialists, shopkeepers, clerks, cabbies, and truck drivers. They are, in short, ``we the people,'' this breed called Americans.

Mr. Speaker, he will be missed by all.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in enthusiastic support of the National Great Black Americans Commemoration Act of 2003, and I want to thank my distinguished colleagues from Maryland, Senator Barbara Mikulski and Representative Elijah Cummings, for their leadership on this legislation.

The bill before the House, S. 1233, provides key funding for an important Baltimore institution. The National Great Blacks in Wax Museum will help preserve our nation's history. Located in East Baltimore, the Museum features nearly 200 exhibits and commemorates Black Americans in the fields of government, law, military service, science and religion. More than 300,000 visitors each year view its exhibits and participate in its programs. I have visited the museum several times, most recently for the unveiling of the image of our friend and former House colleague, Kweisi Mfume.

In the words of noted historian Carter G. Woodson, ``If a race has no history, if it has no worthwhile tradition, it becomes a negligible factor in the thought of the world, and it stands in danger of being exterminated.'' If Dr. Woodson were alive today, he would applaud the work of Drs. Elmer and Joanne Martin. Back in 1983, these two pioneers recognized the importance of going beyond textbooks to expand the horizons of young minds, to stimulate their imaginations, to bring historical figures to life. The National Great Blacks in Wax Museum has helped preserve and celebrate the legacy of Black America, which I would emphasize is important for all Americans, including nascent immigrant communities.

Enactment of this bill will also expand the educational opportunities provided by the Museum, which works in coordination with religious and art groups to offer after-school and community activities in East Baltimore. This bill also authorizes $15 million for expansion of the Museum's existing facilities through a grant from the Department of Justice, and it will establish the Justice Learning Center.

This bill has passed the Senate unanimously and I look forward to its passage in the House and enactment. I urge my colleagues to visit the Great Blacks in Wax Museum, to recommend it to their constituents, and to vote in favor of S. 1233.

Mr. Speaker, let me thank the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Kildee) for his leadership on this issue and helping working people in our country; and, Mr. Speaker, let me say I wish that the comments of the last speaker, my colleague, were true in regards to the economy, but the facts speak to something quite different.

If we take a look at the jobs that have been created within the last several months, we find we have traded very good jobs, jobs in this country, for jobs that are paying much lower wages. When we look at the total record over the last 3 years, we find we have lost millions of jobs. When we look at the unemployment rate in this Nation, we find that many people have just given up hope, and that is why the unemployment rate may appear to be higher than it really is, but many people in this Nation who are looking for jobs cannot find jobs and have literally left the labor field altogether.

Mr. Speaker, we have a problem in our economy, and the problem can first be summed by saying we do not have enough jobs. We need an economic program that will create more jobs for Americans.

Number two, Mr. Speaker, we have millions of Americans who cannot find employment, and they need help called unemployment insurance, which in every prior recession and downturn Democrats and Republicans have come together to extend unemployment benefits. We have a fund to do this. There are millions of dollars in that fund, but yet the majority refuses to allow us to vote on the unemployment compensation.

So the first issue is the issue of jobs, and we need an economic plan that will create jobs. Unfortunately, the administration has pursued a fiscally reckless economic plan that has added trillions of dollars to our national debt and is killing jobs rather than creating jobs because of government debt.

The record over the last 3 years, millions of fewer jobs here in this Nation. People are hurting, Mr. Speaker. We need to do something about it. Eight million Americans are unemployed today; 1.8 million of them have been without a job for 6 months or longer. We have record numbers of people who have exhausted their State unemployment benefits.

Since we allowed last year the expiration of the Federal unemployment insurance benefits, we have found 1.5

million workers have exhausted their State benefits without the benefit of the Federal unemployment insurance; yet, the Republican leadership has refused us a vote on this floor of an extension of the Federal unemployment insurance benefits. They know that a majority of the Members of this body would vote in favor of that legislation, and yet they deny us a vote on the extension of unemployment benefits. Nineteen billion dollars is sitting in the Federal unemployment trust account, $19 billion which is accumulated exactly for this purpose, to help the unemployed worker; and the majority of Republicans refuse to allow us a vote on extending those benefits to those who need it.

So, Mr. Speaker, we have a problem. We have a problem with the wrong economic program, and we have a problem of not helping those people that are unemployed.

This bill does nothing in that regard. We should be debating programs to create new job opportunities in America, and we should be extending unemployment benefits to those who do not have the employment. I regret that we are not doing that today.

I would urge my colleagues to listen to the motion to recommit, because that is the only opportunity we are going to have that will be offered by the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Kildee) that at least will give us a chance to help us do something to help American workers.

Mr. Speaker, I recently attended the Conference on Anti- Semitism of the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) in Berlin from April 28-29, 2004. I was privileged to attend as part of the official U.S. delegation, in my capacity as the Ranking Member of the Commission on Security and Cooperation in Europe (CSCE), commonly known as the Helsinki Commission. I was pleased to give a speech at the Berlin Conference, after visiting the concentration camps in Auschwitz, on the importance of fighting intolerance and speaking out against acts of anti-Semitism. Secretary of State Colin Powell attended the Conference and spoke forcefully about the need to combat anti-Semitism. Mr. Lantos of California, the Ranking Member of the International Relations Committee, has already introduced Secretary Powell's statement into the Record. The 55 Participating States of the OSCE adopted a strong action plan, the Berlin Declaration, which lays out specific steps for states to take regarding Holocaust education, data collection and monitoring of hate crimes against Jews, and improved coordination between non-governmental organizations and European law enforcement agencies.

During our Conference, on the evening of April 28, President Johannes Rau of Germany hosted a dinner for the President of the State of Israel Moshe Katsav. President Katsav spoke powerfully about the need to combat the rising tide of anti-Semitism throughout the world. Let me just highlight one section of President Katsav's remarks:

The violence against the Jews in Europe is evidence that

anti-Semitism, which we have not known since the Second World

War, is on the rise. This trend of the new anti-Semitism is a

result of the aggressive propaganda, made possible by modern

technologies, globalization and abuse of democracy and which

creates an infrastructure for developing and increasing anti-

Semitism, of a kind we have not known before * * * Many times

I have heard voices saying that anti-Semitism is not unique

and that it is no different from other kinds of racism. Anti-

Semitism should indeed receive special attention. Hatred

against the Jews has existed for many generations and it is

rooted in many cultures and continents through the world.

However, now anti-Semitism has become an instrument for

achieving political aims * * * The genocide of the Jews was

the result of anti-Semitism and was not caused by a war

between countries or a territorial conflict and, therefore,

anti-Semitism is a special danger for world Jewry and the

whole of Europe.

Let me draw my colleagues attention to a particularly important part of the Berlin Declaration, in which the OSCE participating States ``declare[d] unambiguously that international development of political issues, including those in Israel or elsewhere in the Middle East, never justify anti-Semitism.'' Let me be clear that I am not seeking to suppress legitimate criticism of Israel, just as I would not seek to silence those who criticize the policies of the U.S. Government. However, when individuals criticize the very existence of the Jewish state, equate Zionism with racism, and compare the Israeli Government to the Nazi regime, then all of us must say together: this is anti- Semitism, and you have crossed the line.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the full text of the Israeli President's remarks at the President's Palace in Berlin be placed in the Record, and I urge my colleagues to read President Katsav's thoughtful remarks.

Address of the President of the State of Israel, Mr. Moshe Katsav, at

the President's Palace in Berlin

Mr. President, Ministers, Distinguished Guests, Heads of

Delegations:

It is very difficult and sad for me to stand here today in

Berlin, 60 years after the Holocaust and to speak about anti-

Semitism and the ways of fighting against it.

We, world Jewry, believed that after the terrible events of

the Holocaust, it would not be necessary to struggle against

anti-Semitism.

We believed that the world would not allow anti-Semitism to

raise its head.

We believed that anti-Semitism belonged to the old world

and to distant history.

We very much appreciate this gathering in Berlin. This step

to fight anti-Semitism sends a very important message that

this issue has a significant place in the European

agenda, in the relations between Israel and Europe and

between Europe and world Jewry. It is a sign that the

security of Jews touches directly basic human values.

I am standing here as a representative of a nation which

suffered a great deal during many generations of exiles,

inquisition and the terrible Holocaust-Shoah.

I represent a nation which desires to live in peace without

fear, without bloodshed, without incitement and without

violence.

I am standing here as a citizen of a democratic and free

world which is committed to the values of freedom, equality,

to universal values which oppose anti-Semitism.

Anti-Semitism is a big tragedy for the Jewish people. It is

a moral and historic failure for humanity. It is a failure of

world leaders. It is a failure of the free world.

If humanity does not express determination and does not

learn the historical lesson, the Holocaust will not remain an

abstract issue for the next generation.

Among international leaders, no one in 1933 believed that

the Holocaust would happen and, not even at the beginning of

the war in 1939. It is very difficult to believe but the

Holocaust happened in the heart of Europe, in one of the most

sophisticated countries in the world, which had the best

musicians, philosophers, scientists and researchers in the

world.

Lately we are witnessing again the burning of synagogues

and Jewish schools, the desecration of Jewish cemeteries and

horrible writings.

Jews are again afraid to walk in the streets with a Star of

David and a yarmulke. Jewish children are again a target of

violence and the streets of Europe are again not safe for

Jews, only because they are Jews.

Jews, as individuals and as a collective, are a target of

physical and emotional violence.

Hostile letters, graffiti and the use of the Internet and

the media are examples of instruments against the Jews.

For a long time Europe denied the rise in anti-Semitism.

The problem is not just the physical violence and damage

caused to Jewish institutions. We are concerned about the

hostility and incitement against the Jews and Israel in

Europe.

There are some who blame the Jews for an international

conspiracy and even blame them for the terrorist acts of

September 11th. They accuse American Jews of cooperating with

Israel in blaming Islam for these terrorist attacks.

We are witnessing a new trend by radical Muslims who are

recreating the classical blood libel and who are publishing

again the ``Protocols of the Elders of Zion'' which claim

that the Jews aim to control the world.

For others, the new anti-Semitism is a way of criticizing

the Jews and Israel for their treatment of the Palestinian

people.

In Europe the rise in classical antiSemitism, represents

the Jews and the Jewish state as brutal devils, the source of

wars and responsible for global disasters.

It is difficult for us to believe, but recently the public

opinion polls which were initiated by the European Commission

show that a majority of Europeans believe Israel is a danger

for the stability and peace in the world.

Not the non-democratic countries which are trying to

develop and achieve mass destruction weapons, not the

totalitarian countries which back terrorist organizations,

not the brutal bloodshed in the name of God, not poverty but

we, Israel, are a danger for world peace in the eyes of some

European people.

The violence against the Jews in Europe is evidence that

anti-Semitism, which we have not known since the Second World

War, is on the rise. This trend of the new anti-Semitism is a

result of the aggressive propaganda, made possible by modern

technologies, globalization and abuse of democracy and which

creates an infrastructure for developing and increasing anti-

Semitism, of a kind we have not known before.

Millions and millions of people are exposed to television

programs and Internet sites full of blood libels.

The silence, the closing of eyes and the slow reactions in

some countries permit this incitement to become deeper and

stronger.

It is impossible to fight against antiSemitism, while

permitting the demonization of Israel and its leaders and

denying its legitimate right to exist.

During the last decade we took historical steps towards the

Palestinian people. I would like to mention the Oslo

Agreement, the Camp David conference and the acceptance of

the Roadmap but during the last ten years we have had not

even one quiet day and we suffered from brutal and terrible

bloodshed.

Sometimes we feel that Europeans are not ready to feel

solidarity with us or to recognize the suffering of the

Israeli people from the terrible terrorism, which has

continued for many years.

The brutality of the terrorism in the Middle East is of a

type that humanity has never seen before.

It is only by cooperation, with determination and with

leadership that we can overcome this hatred.

We are astonished that there are still people who deny the

Holocaust.

The Durban Conference in September 2001 shocked all of us.

It was meant to be a conference against racism but became a

meeting of racists against the Jews and the State of Israel.

The anti-Semitism in Europe is a result of the cooperation

among elements who are against the West and western values,

who are against globalization and against progress, as well

as extremists from the left and right and from organizations

of radical Muslims.

The world of Islam is very large. There are more than a

billion people who are not of one mind and opinion. There are

some Muslim countries which have diplomatic relations with

Israel, such as Turkey, Egypt, the Hashemite Kingdom, the

Muslim Republics in Central Asia, Persian Gulf countries and

others. Not all Muslims are anti-Semitic and there is no

conflict between Judaism and Islam. In Europe there are 20

million Muslims. Most of them are very good people who desire

to live calm and normal lives. However, they are afraid to

raise their voices against the extremists. I call on the

moderate Muslims in Europe and on their leaders to cooperate

with us in encouraging tolerance and understanding for a free

and better world.

However, we must still remember that there are still Muslim

countries and organizations which are calling for the

destruction of the State of Israel.

Anti-Semitism is encouraged and is given inspiration by

international terrorism.

Anti-Semitism is a great danger to democracy and freedom in

the world.

Where synagogues are burnt, the day will come when stones

will be thrown on parliament and democracy is in danger.

Fighting against anti-Semitism with determination will

deliver a strong message to the international terrorist

organizations and will be a message that the free world has

determination to defend its values and is not prepared to

tolerate anti-Semitism, hostility and racism.

Anti-Semitism has no justification, no legitimacy and

should not be shown any understanding. Anti-Semitism is a

great threat to freedom. It uses human morality, democracy

and liberalism for its destructive aims.

Black people are not responsible for the racism against

them just as the Jews are not responsible for anti-Semitism.

We had hoped that the creation of a Jewish State would help

prevent anti-Semitism. We desired to be a free nation in our

homeland, like all nations. The Jewish state is a national

home for every Jew and we want to be sure that never again

will Jews be unprotected.

We are shocked by the accusations, which compare Israel to

Nazi Germany. There is a linkage between this incitement and

the violence against Jews in the streets of Europe.

We do not want to prevent legitimate political criticism

against Israeli government policy, but we will not tolerate

incitement against world Jewry and the Jewish state.

Many times I have heard voices saying that anti-Semitism is

not unique and that it is no different from other kinds of

racism. Anti-Semitism should indeed receive special

attention. Hatred against the Jews has existed for many

generations and it is rooted in many cultures and continents

throughout the world.

However, now anti-Semitism has become an instrument for

achieving political aims. It is being used by Muslims as an

instrument to achieve political gains.

The genocide of the Jews was the result of anti-Semitism

and was not caused by a war between countries or a

territorial conflict and, therefore, anti-Semitism is a

special danger for world Jewry and the whole of Europe.

Can it be that the impact of the Holocaust is not strong

enough to stop and prevent anti-Semitism? Can it be that the

impact of the Holocaust has become weaker in the last

decades?

We must focus all our efforts, energies and wisdom on

educational activities and research on the Holocaust. We must

transmit the lesson of the Holocaust to the young

generations.

I call to continue researching and documenting all the

events relating to the Holocaust.

We must teach the young generation human values.

I call on the European leaders to increase the awareness of

anti-Semitic acts in their countries, to research the origin

and background in each country and to evaluate anti-Semitism

on a national level.

I call for a mechanism for monitoring and controlling anti-

Semitic events and for ways to fight them.

I call for increased cooperation between the countries and

law enforcement authorities, in fighting anti-Semitism in

Europe.

I call for legislation to prevent anti-Semitism, especially

in the Internet and via satellite programs.

I call for a meeting of professionals from all over the

world to set up a program and take real steps against anti-

Semitism.

I greatly appreciate European governments and leaders who

are fighting against anti-Semitism and I very much appreciate

this important gathering in Berlin.

Most European countries have close relations with the Arab

countries which are responsible for producing incitement and

anti-Semitic propaganda on television, in books and in

newspapers which are distributed in Europe and around the

world.

We must put pressure on such countries to stop the

distribution of such terrible incitement against the Jews.

It is not enough to talk against anti-Semitism. We must

act.

I believe that European countries wish to do as much as

possible to stop anti-Semitism and give security to their

Jewish citizens.

European leaders have done a lot lately but not enough. It

is necessary to do more in the fields of education, public

opinion, legislation and law enforcement.

At this time, we the Jews are not alone. I can see many

good friends here who are standing with us. I am aware of

many people, nations and leaders who are struggling against

anti-Semitism, as they understand that anti-Semitism is a

danger to the stability and peace in the world, to human

values.

I am aware of European governments who are our partners in

our efforts and concern to provide security for every Jew and

they understand that Jews have the right to live without fear

anywhere.

I appreciate the governments in Europe who have already

appointed special ministerial committees for fighting anti-

Semitism. I appreciate countries whose parliaments dedicated

special sessions on the issue of anti-Semitism.

I appreciate those countries who have decided to strongly

condemn anti-Semitism in international bodies.

Indeed, now at the beginning of the 21st century, the

situation is very serious. There is an increase in violence

and an escalation of anti-Semitism against the Jews but there

is a big difference. We are not living in the thirties. We

have a Jewish, sovereign and independent state and this makes

a big difference.

We know what happened in the Second World War and what

racism brought upon the world and, because of this I am very

pleased that there is more awareness. Now leaders are more

sensitive and they protect their citizens. There is

legislation and law enforcement in many countries. The

leaders speak out and there are many seminars and conferences

against anti-Semitism. The strong position of the United

States of America in this matter is remarkable. I also very

much appreciate the position of the Vatican on this difficult

and tragic issue.

I am very sorry that the Irish proposal to the United

Nations General Assembly in December 2003, was not adopted,

because of the objection of some Muslim countries. It is very

sad that a special resolution which condemns anti-Semitism

and attacks against Jews cannot be passed now in the United

Nations.

The European Union should continue its efforts in this

important initiative and in all multilateral organizations,

in fighting against anti-Semitism.

We are very proud of our Jewish heritage and history. It is

a source of pride for world Jewry. I hope that the Jewish

people will also be a source of appreciation, understanding

and respect and not a target for hatred.

I hope and pray for cooperation for development, prosperity

and tolerance instead of destruction, bloodshed and hatred.

I would like to thank, you, President Rau and Foreign

Minister Joschka Fischer for this important initiative. I

believe that this meeting will be very constructive and that

it will help us achieve our mutual goals.

I hope that the Berlin Conference will serve as a basis for

continued efforts against anti-Semitism.

I wish to express my personal appreciation to President Rau

for his wise and moral leadership, for his great friendship

towards Israel and the Jewish people, and his personal

dedication to the fight against anti-Semitism.

We have the strength and the will to create a better world,

a just world for all humanity. Let us put all our efforts

together to make it possible. Let us work together.

Thank you.

Mr. Speaker, I take this time to say thank you to Charlie Johnson for his public service. He has never been elected as a Member of this body, but he has had as much influence as anyone who has ever been elected to this House in preserving the traditions of this great democratic institution, and I thank him for that. His contributions go well beyond the 40 years of service because what he has done in his service will be a lasting tradition in this body and will serve future generations.

He cannot duck a single tough issue, but he has ruled every time on the basis of sound precedent without partisan considerations. He is a person of the highest integrity, an encyclopedic mind, a person who is totally committed to our country and this legislative body.

Mr. Speaker, I just wanted to take this 1 minute as one Member of this body to thank Charlie Johnson for what he has done to make this great institution a better place for the future.

I thank you, I thank you for your friendship, and I thank you for your commitment.

Mr. Speaker, it is really a sad moment that we are considering this bill, another tax bill, another week. We are really not serious about trying to help American taxpayers or trying to get a budget that makes some sense, that is balanced, that does not mortgage our future, that does not require us to ask our children and grandchildren to pay for what we are doing today.

Mr. Speaker, I would have a little more sympathy for this bill if it was an extension of the current child credit bill that many of us have supported. We think the child credit law makes some sense. But this bill does more than that. I think it is important to point out that this bill would increase the income limits of those who qualify for the child credit. That is an additional tax cut that is being placed in this bill that affects people whose incomes are over $100,000-some.

I mention that because every dollar of tax relief that this bill provides is going to have to be borrowed. We are going to have to pay interest on it. It is going to encumber our decisions in the future, whether to protect our Nation in national defense, homeland security, or to adequately fund our schools. I think it is immoral for us to create debt today in order to give a tax cut and then ask future generations to pay for those tax cuts.

Mr. Speaker, I said that this was an extension of a bill that we already passed. I think an argument could be made, but this is to expand that credit, to give an additional tax cut; and it is being done in a way that it is not paid for. I just think that is wrong.

I would hope that we would be able to work together on tax policies because I think there is some agreement on both sides of the aisle, but not the way that this legislation is being presented. I urge my colleagues to support the substitute and to reject the final version if the substitute is not approved.

Mr. Speaker, on Monday, May 31, America will celebrate Memorial Day, our most solemn national holiday. First observed in 1868 to commemorate the Civil War dead, it was initially called Decoration Day. This tradition of placing flags on the graves of our war dead began at a time when our country still bore the scars of a four-year war that claimed 620,000 American lives, a war that divided America as nothing else has, before or since.

But as the House of Representatives pauses in 2004 to honor our Nation's fallen heroes, we do so as one Nation united by the values of liberty and democracy. When American families carry wreaths and flags to veterans' graves across the country, we do so as one America. When we visit the Garrison Forest Veterans Cemetery in Owings Mills, Arlington National Cemetery, the Vietnam Veterans Memorial, or the new World War II Memorial on the Mall, our memories will be of those we knew and loved. And our thoughts and prayers will be with those still in combat today.

This year, while our military struggles to bring stability to Iraq, mounting American casualties cast new light on the meaning of valor and sacrifice. Nearly 800 American men and women have died in Iraq in the past fourteen months; yet on the faces of our soldiers, we see only their resolve, their unwavering dedication.

I want to make special mention of the 8 young Marylanders who have died in the Iraqi conflict: Private Brandon Davis, Specialist Jason Ford, Command Sergeant Major Cornell Gilmore, Captain Jason David Mileo, Specialist George A. Mitchell, First Lieutenant Adam G. Mooney, Sergeant Jeffery Walker, and Staff Sergeant Kendall Damon Waters-Bey. These brave men left the comfort and safety of our shores for Iraq, and theirs was the ultimate sacrifice. They are our heroes in the truest sense of the word. We extend our gratitude to them, we offer our condolences to their loved ones, and we hold them up as an example of America's best.

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

Mr. Speaker, first let me thank the gentlewoman from New York for yielding me this time. I was listening to her comments. I just want to concur in that this is a very unusual process. Once again we are not going to have full debate and the opportunity to offer amendments. Although we might be getting used to it because it seems to be the norm around here, we should never be silent as to how this is wrong. We should have an opportunity to offer amendments. We should have an opportunity for an open process. We should have an opportunity to debate a bill on its merits. And we are not going to get that chance.

Mr. Speaker, let me mention just two matters that affect the people that I represent in Maryland and the reason I took this time. First, I agree with the previous speaker on this side of the aisle that we should be doing something to bring down the cost of prescription medicines in this country. That is why I will vote against ordering the previous question, because I think we should have a debate on the floor dealing with the cost of medicines which is still the number one problem that I hear when I go to my town hall meetings. The second issue deals with these association health plans. I went to the Committee on Rules and asked for an amendment that would exempt States from these association health plans if the State requested it and they had a small-market reform which already provided help for their small businesses. In my State of Maryland, the adoption of the association health plans will actually be counterproductive. There will be fewer companies that will be offering health care benefits than there are today. That is why Governor Ehrlich has opposed that plan and many other Governors around the Nation have done the same. But I am not even going to have an opportunity to offer that amendment that would give the States the opportunity to continue their initiative. After all, I thought we believed in States rights here and the ability of States to be able to move forward with initiatives to cover their uninsured. But no, this bill works just the opposite. That is why many of our States we have heard from would oppose the association health plans in the way that it is currently drafted.

Mr. Speaker, I regret that the Committee on Rules did not allow that amendment to be made in order nor did they allow any amendment to be made in order. That is not the way that we should be operating in this body. It does not speak to the democratic process. Therefore, I would oppose the rule.