Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, the abuse of Iraqi prisoners by American soldiers and personnel constitute deplorable, despicable acts. We are all sickened by the pictures of our troops laughing and pointing at Iraqi prisoners who had been stripped naked, possibly beaten, and forced to pose in sexually explicit positions. These actions have compromised not only our mission in Iraq, but also the reputation of the American governments and its agents. Let me be clear: All but a few of our

soldiers and military personnel perform their jobs honorably on behalf of the American people, and our military is playing an important role in keeping the peace and promoting democracy around the world.

Our next step is clear: Congress must hold an open, complete and bipartisan investigation into these terrible allegations. We have a responsibility to oversee our military and intelligence services, and only through an independent investigation by Congress will we be able to regain our Nation's credibility as a champion for human rights. I am disappointed that the pending resolution does not reference an independent inquiry by Congress. The Pentagon must also take quick action to punish those involved, including holding those superiors who knew, encouraged, condoned, or should have known about those abuses. The resolution rightly points out the military must undertake corrective action to address chain of command deficiencies and systemic deficiencies in the military. We must also examine the role played by American civilian contractors in performing governmental functions such as interrogation of enemy prisoners.

Mr. Speaker, I serve as the Ranking Member of the Commission on Security and Cooperation in Europe (CSCE), commonly known as the Helsinki Commission. The United States is one of the fifty-five nations that serve as members of the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE), the largest regional security organization in the world.

The United States has agreed to a number of Helsinki commitments beginning in 1989 in Vienna regarding democracy, rule of law, and human rights. We regularly criticize other governments in Europe and Central Asia when they use, condone, or fail to stop acts of torture in their prisons. Part of our commitments include: The education and training of all personnel--whether civil, medical, or military--that handle prisoners; systematic review of interrogation rules, methods, and practices; and a systematic review of arrangements for custody and treatment of detained persons, with a view to preventing any cases of torture. The OSCE publishes a ``preventing torture'' handbook to help Participating States eradicate torture.

As the United States seeks to wage a global war on terrorism, many questions have been raised regarding U.S. efforts to combat terrorism and whether related actions are consistent with our international obligations and commitments. Last year on June 26, on the International Day in Support of the Victims of Torture, President Bush declared that ``Torture anywhere is an affront to human dignity everywhere.'' He observed that ``Freedom from torture is an inalienable human right.'' The State Department has also noted that ``Freedom from torture is an inalienable human right, and the prohibition of torture is a basic principle of international human rights law. This prohibition is absolute and allows no exception.'' Finally, as the General Counsel to the Defense Department, William Haynes wrote to Senator Leahy that, ``the United States does not permit, tolerate, or condone any such torture by its employees under any circumstances.''

Mr. Speaker, last year I offered, and then withdrew, an amendment to the Department of Defense Appropriations bill for FY 04 that would prohibit the use of any funds in the bill from being used to carry out torture. I was disturbed by a December 2002 article in the Washington Post. The article cited a number of defense and intelligence sources which allege that some detainees in Afghanistan and elsewhere may have been tortured.

The abuse of Iraqi prisoners by American soldiers not only harmed the victims, but also harmed our country. It has damaged our mission in Iraq. It has soiled our reputation in pursuit of humanitarian issues.

What happened in Baghdad's Abu Ghraib prison does not reflect U.S. values. We must speak out and take action against torture anywhere in the world, even if it occurs under our watch. We must act decisively.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to commemorate Yom Hashoah, Holocaust Martyrs' and Heroes' Remembrance Day, which memorializes the six million Jews murdered by the Nazis during their campaign of genocide in World War II. We mourn the innocent lives lost and vibrant communities destroyed while the world shamefully stood silent, and honor those heroes of the Warsaw Ghetto who faced certain death when they refused to submit to the Nazi's planned extermination of their community.

To this day, Mr. Speaker, many European countries have failed to right the past wrongs of the Holocaust by failing to adequately redress the wrongful confiscation of property by the Nazi and communist regimes. These seizures took place over decades; they were part of the modus operandi of repressive, totalitarian regimes; and they affected millions of people. The passage of time, border changes, and population shifts are only a few of the things that make the wrongful property seizures of the past such difficult problems to address today.

While I recognize that many obstacles stand in the way of righting these past wrongs, I do not believe that these challenges make property restitution or compensation impossible. On the contrary, I believe much more should have been done--and can still be done now-while our elderly Holocaust survivors are still living.

Today I also want to sound the alarm about a disturbing trend that Jews face today: a rising tide of anti-Semitism throughout the world.

I serve as the Ranking Member of the Commission on Security and Cooperation in Europe (CSCE), commonly known as the Helsinki Commission. Later today I will travel to Europe as part of the U.S. Delegation to several meetings of the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE), a fifty-five national regional security organization which includes Europe, Central Asia, and North America. The Helsinki Commission has held multiple hearings on this issue, and the House and Senate have adopted resolutions strongly condemning this rising tide of anti-Semitism, as has the OSCE Parliamentary Assembly.

As part of my upcoming Helsinki Commission trip, I will travel to Warsaw, Krakow, and then to the death camps at Auschwitz, to see firsthand the remains of the factories of intolerance, hate, and death. From there I will travel to an OSCE Conference on Anti-Semitism, which will also be attended by Secretary of State Colin Powell. I will then return to the United States, where I will host a group of constituents at the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum in Washington.

The Berlin Conference will be instrumental in the battle against anti-Semitism, as elected officials, government leaders and executives of non-governmental organizations come together to discuss how to fight this destructive evil. Anti-Semitism still afflicts societies throughout the world, including the United States. While we have made some progress in moving governments to respond through public denunciations and vigorous law enforcement, there is much more we can do to confront and combat anti-Semitism. The Conference will specifically address the roles of governments, civil society, education and the media in combating prejudice and in promoting tolerance.

As we commemorate Yom Hashoah, let us honor the memory of those who perished in the Holocaust by pledging to fight intolerance, hate crimes, and violence in our community and around the world. We shall never be silent again.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce the Master Teacher Act of 2004.

Qualified, experienced, dedicated teachers are our most valuable resources for educating the nation's children. Under the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLBA), states are required to recruit highly qualified teachers, yet rural schools and schools in low-income areas often have difficulty attracting and retaining faculty. The Master Teacher Act of 2004 will help improve these schools' ability to attract the best teachers.

The real tragedy in our education system is that so many schools are failing to meet adequate yearly progress (AYP) performance standards. As currently designated by NCLBA, one hundred percent of our nation's public school students must meet AYP standards in reading, math, and science by the 2013-14 school year. This seems an insurmountable task for many underfunded school districts. In my home state of Maryland, more than one-third of public schools are now considered failing. This is not acceptable.

To improve educational achievement for all our students, we must ensure that underperforming public schools can attract and keep qualified teachers who will serve as a catalyst for change. The Master Teacher Act of 2004 will encourage teachers to work in those schools by offering tax incentives that will reward them financially for taking on such a challenge.

``Master teachers'' are defined as faculty who hold a master's degree, have at least five years teaching experience in a public elementary or secondary school, meet the ``highly qualified'' standard as defined by the NCLBA, and have obtained advanced certification in their state licensing system. My legislation would reward ``master teachers'' who agree to teach in an underperforming school by exempting 25 percent of their gross income from federal taxes. They would be eligible for this exemption for up to four years. For the purposes of this legislation, underperforming schools are those that fail to meet Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) standards as defined by NCLBA.

Mr. Speaker, good teachers are essential to a successful education system. They are the profession responsible for educating all other professionals, and therefore they are essential to our success as a nation. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this legislation and giving all our children access to the best teachers possible.

Mr. Speaker, I have a parliamentary inquiry.

Mr. Speaker, we had a hard time hearing the resolution, but am I correct that this is the resolution that will allow the House to go into recess for 2 weeks at the completion of our business today? Is that what is being voted on?

Mr. Speaker, part of my parliamentary inquiry is, am I correct in understanding that if this resolution passes, we will not be able to consider the extension of unemployment benefits, and another 160,000 people will exhaust their benefits during this recess?

If I am correct, Mr. Speaker, I would urge my colleagues to vote against the resolution.

Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Speaker, let me thank the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews) for his leadership on pension issues and protecting working people. I agree completely with what he has said with regards to multi-employer. I am very happy that my friend, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Portman), is on the floor. I want to thank the gentleman from Ohio (Chairman Boehner) for all of his help on dealing with particularly the ERISA provisions as it affects pension rules.

It is interesting, in regards to the multi-employers, it was included in legislation that the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Portman) and I authored to try to deal with the current problems of funding a pension plan. I regret it is not included in this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, let me point out that when this bill passed this body I urged my colleagues to support the bill, but I pointed out that it is not going to correct the problem. It is a temporary Band-Aid, that we should have done more. We should have had a longer than 2-year replacement of the 30-year Treasury.

We should have had a permanent correction. We know what we should be doing. Using the formula that is in this

bill, we should have had it for more than just 2 years.

I also pointed out that there are many other provisions in funding of pension plans, defined benefit plans that need to be addressed. I know there is an attempt here to deal with the mortality schedules, but we should deal with it broader. There are a lot of blue collar workers that today their pension plans are overfunded in regards to the mortality schedules.

We had the issue of smoothing contributions to allow employers to make more predictable contributions to the defined benefit plans. All that needs to be dealt with.

So, Mr. Speaker, I hope that my colleagues will support this bill because it is important that we get this relief in effect before April 15, but I hope that we will do a lot more in protecting the defined benefits because, if we do not, if we do not take this issue up, next year when we talk about it or 2 years from now, we are going to find there are less defined benefit plans that are out there.

The well-funded plans are going to freeze or convert, but they are not going to do the current roles that are out there. We need to reform and make sure that plans are accurately funded, fully funded so that employees are protected, but we also have to make sure that there are incentives for companies to continue their defined benefit plans.

So I urge my colleagues to support this legislation, support my colleague's, the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews), motion to recommit so we can then deal with the multi-employer issue, but let us get this bill to the President's desk as quickly as possible.

Madam Speaker, I rise in strong support of H. Res. 558, which welcomes the accession of Bulgaria, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Romania, Slovakia, and Slovenia to the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO).

Earlier this month I celebrated the 86th anniversary of the declaration of independence of Lithuania with my constituents and the Lithuanian Society in Baltimore. I am very enthusiastic about the accomplishments of the Lithuanian people and my optimism for that nation's future. As you know, I am of Lithuanian heritage and share your special interest in Lithuania's development.

I am proud of the United States' strong support for Lithuania through the extension of membership to the NATO alliance, and the continued endorsement for the nation's integration into the European Union. In 2003 the U.S. Senate unanimously ratified Lithuania's inclusion into NATO, and praised Lithuania for ``serving as an example to emerging democracies worldwide.''

As as an invited member of NATO and the European Union, the Republic of Lithuania plays a role in promoting security abroad and in combating international threats. Since 1994, the Lithuanian Armed Forces have demonstrated this commitment by deploying over 1,300 servicemen on missions to the Balkans and, most recently, Afghanistan and Iraq.

Lithuania's accession to NATO really marks the return of Lithuania to the Euro-Atlantic partnership and alliance, as we face the new challenges of the global war on terrorism.

Lithuania has made considerable progress towards a functioning market economy, and has enjoyed some of the highest domestic product growth rates in all of Europe. I am therefore pleased to see that Lithuania will shortly be joining the European Union (EU), which will grow from 15 to 25 members on May 1, 2004.

By joining the EU, the nation will greatly benefit from a larger, more integrated European marketplace. We should continue our partnership to further strengthen Lithuania's economic growth.

I am also pleased to report that in the last decade Lithuania has made great progress in the area of human rights, rule of law, and religious freedom all while pursuing further integration into European political, economic, and security organizations. As a member of Congress, I serve on the Commission on Security and Cooperation in Europe, commonly known as the Helsinki Commission. I also serve as the Chairman of the Economic Committee of the OSCE Parliamentary Assembly. Lithuania, among other countries, has agreed to the terms of the Helskinki Final Act, which calls upon governments to respect religious freedom and minority rights as well as guarantee free speech and political dissent. Lithuania has successfully moved to establish a strong democratic government, holding fair elections since 1991 and supporting an independent judiciary--both of which are critical components for maintaining rule of law and fighting corruption in any country.

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to join my colleagues in supporting this resolution, in saluting the accomplishments of Lithuania and looking forward with great pride and expectation to the future. I urge my colleagues to take a moment to reflect on the unique Lithuanian culture and its contribution to the world.

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

Madam Speaker, I rise also in support of this legislation, which would extend the TANF and related programs for 3 additional months. It is important that these programs continue uninterrupted. They provide the wherewithal that our States can deal with some very vulnerable populations and help people restore their lives and help people be able to work. The bill is important, the program is important, and we need to pass it. It also provides for the extension of transitional Medicaid which provides health care benefits to people who are coming off welfare. These are important programs that need to continue uninterrupted.

Madam Speaker, I share the disappointment of the gentleman from California that we are not considering a long-term extension of TANF and related programs. I think we need to do that. However, I disagree with my chairman as to the reason why we have been unable to do that. In the other body, they are now working on a bill, and I hope they are successful in bringing forward legislation. They are working, Democrats and Republicans, to try to produce a good bill. I am very happy that an amendment was adopted today that increases the amount of money in child care by $6 billion. We are starting to get towards a true bipartisan bill that will provide the resources that the States desperately need in order to move welfare reform to the next plateau, and that is getting families out of poverty, because we have not been very successful in achieving that plateau of getting families out of poverty.

The reason I disagree with the gentleman from California as to why we are at this point where we are asking for another short-term extension, I do not believe it is the other body's fault. I think it is this body's fault, because the legislation that we passed, and I might say without any deliberation in this body, we just rubber-stamped the bill that was passed in the last Congress. The bill was not a bipartisan bill, it was a bill that was not favored by our States, it was a bill that goes backwards on welfare rather than continuing reform by being so prescriptive to our States, telling our States what they have to do. Unfunded mandates on our States. It is estimated that to implement the requirements that we placed in this bill would cost our States at least another $11 billion in child care alone, let alone some of the other expenses. The worst part about the bill was that it provides for make- work activities, not real jobs. It does not take America's families out of poverty who are leaving welfare.

The reason we were unable to accomplish that, there was no effort to reach out, to bring out a bill that was truly bipartisan like they are trying to do in the other body. As a result of the action of this body, we made it very difficult to get a long-term extension enacted. I regret that.

I wish Members would listen to some of the experts in this field. We just got a letter from David Hage from the Star Tribune, who has written a book titled, ``Reforming Welfare By Rewarding Work.'' That is exactly what we want to do. He talks about the Minnesota example. Let me just quote from Mr. Hage, if I might:

``In a recent conference call with journalists, Assistant Health and Human Services Secretary, Wade Horn, said the next steps in welfare reform

should be reducing poverty and improving the well-being of families and children.

``Yet the White House and House proposals for TANF reauthorization would do little to accomplish these goals and might in fact subvert them.''

Then he goes on to tell why the prescriptive nature of the bill that was passed by the House makes it difficult for States to adopt the type of programs necessary so that families can get the skills they need, the education they need, the training they need, so they can not only get a job but they can move up the economic ladder of success. That is what TANF reauthorization should be about. It should not be moving backwards to penalize people and to make it difficult for them to be able to succeed and, worse than that, making it very difficult for our States to comply with our laws without spending a lot more money, and not the way they think it is best to spend that money.

Madam Speaker, I support this bill because we need to continue this program; but as I have said, I think this is my sixth time on the floor on a temporary extension during the last year and a half. Once again speaking for the Members on this side of the aisle, we are ready to sit down today to work out a true bipartisan multi-year TANF reauthorization bill and to consider the issues so that we can really improve our welfare system, help our States and deal with those families that need our help today. If the leadership on the other side is willing to do that, we would not have to be doing these short-term extensions. We could, in fact, be voting on not only in this body but we could be sending to the President a good multi-year reauthorization of the TANF programs to help American families get out of poverty and find real employment.

Madam Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin), a senior member of the committee who was very instrumental in the 1996 TANF legislation.

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

Madam Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds just to respond to the gentleman from California to point out that the only new money in this bill that passed this body, the only new money is some small dollars in regards to marriage promotion and $1 billion guaranteed for child care. That will not even keep up with the current purchasing power, let alone provide the needed resources to deal with the new work requirements. In my own State of Maryland, we have frozen new enrollments into child care because of a lack of resources.

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield 5 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Woolsey), who has been one of the leaders in this body on welfare reform, children's issues, and family issues.

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

Madam Speaker, the very first words in the TANF program are: ``The purpose of this part is to increase the flexibility of the States . . . '' The law then highlights several purposes such as helping needy families and promoting work.

My concern is that the legislation that passed this body takes a major step backwards in our stated goal of giving State flexibility.

The House bill reduces State flexibility on providing education and training by removing it from a core work activity. This is an issue for the States to decide, but, no, in our legislation we make it a Federal issue.

The House bill reduces States' flexibility in addressing the individual needs of welfare recipients by doubling the number of required work hours for mothers with children under the age of 6 required in the legislation that passed this body. This should be up to the States to make those judgments. That is what State flexibility is about.

The House bill reduces the flexibility of States to design programs that focus on moving people from welfare to work by increasing work participation rates without providing an employment credit for those individuals who leave welfare for a wage-paying job. Once again, the States should be able to tailor their own programs to meet their needs. That was the commitment we made in 1996.

And the House bill reduces State flexibility by imposing full sanctions, not giving States the opportunity to have their own sanctions system, once again taking away flexibility from the States. That is not what we should be doing.

The 1996 welfare reform worked because we trusted our States, we gave them the tools, and they developed programs that made sense to get people off of welfare and to get people employed. That is what we need to do again in the next chapter of welfare reform by not only empowering our States but making it easier for them to get families out of poverty.

I urge my colleagues to support this legislation so that we can continue the current program, but I also urge my colleagues, particularly on the other side of the aisle, to sit down with us and let us work out a sensible bipartisan bill that really will continue the commitment we made in 1996 to our families of America and to our States, giving the States the resources and the flexibility to get the job done.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from Massachusetts for yielding me this time.

Mr. Speaker, I do not object to this rule; but I do strongly object to congressional inaction on an issue of daily importance to millions of Americans, that is, the extension of unemployment benefits for workers who have lost their jobs through no fault of their own. Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan said earlier this month, ``I think considering the possibility of extending unemployment benefits is not a bad idea in times like this.''

Congress allowed the temporary extended unemployment compensation program to expire at the end of last year despite a tremendous need for these extended benefits. Many of us have been trying to extend the program ever since, but the Republican leadership in Congress has continually blocked those attempts. This obstructionism has occurred even though majorities in both the House and the Senate have voted to extend unemployment benefits. This obstructionism has gone on despite the fact that the average duration of unemployment has reached its highest level in over 20 years. This obstructionism continues even after we have heard our economy had a zero private sector growth in jobs last month. This obstructionism blocks action even as more than 1 million Americans have run out of unemployment benefits without finding work in just the last 3 months. And this obstructionism continues even after the Secretary of the Treasury indicated the President is finally willing to say he would sign an unemployment extension bill if it is sent to his desk.

Mr. Speaker, enough is enough. Congress needs to act to help the unemployed as it has during every other time when jobs were scarce. If the previous question is defeated on this rule, the next order of business before the House will be the consideration of an unemployment extension. More specifically, the House would debate a 6-month extension of the expired temporary extended unemployment compensation program. This extension would help nearly 3 million jobless workers pay their mortgages, put food on the table, and deal with these very difficult economic times.

I, therefore, strongly urge my colleagues to defeat the previous question so that we can provide the necessary assistance to those who are unemployed and cannot find employment.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Edwards) for yielding me time.

Let me correct my good friend, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Portman) in that in 1997 we exercised discipline on the tax side also and instituted the pay-as-you-go rules, so that we could not just do unlimited tax cuts, which is in the Republican budget.

Mr. Chairman, let me suggest there are many reasons to oppose the Republican budget and support the substitute that will be offered by the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt). The main reason is one of fiscal responsibility. It is important that we bring this deficit down. It is important that we do not add to the national debts.

The Spratt alternative budget does a much better job and brings us into balance, whereas the Republican budget just adds trillions of dollars to the national debt. But let me give you one more reason, if I might, and there are many reasons.

I am the ranking Democrat on the Subcommittee on Human Resources. I just attended a conference on the well-being of children; and for the sake of our children, I hope that my colleagues will vote for the Spratt substitute, which is a balanced approach.

There are 760,000 people in this country that have exhausted their State unemployment compensation benefits since December when we allowed that program to expire. My friend from Ohio is incorrect in that we do have record numbers of unemployed. Many have just given up. They cannot find employment. There are three people seeking a job for every job that is available.

The Spratt Democratic substitute budget provides compensation for these people who have exhausted their State unemployment benefits. The Republican budget provides zero, not a penny.

In the area of child care, the welfare work requirements estimated will cost our States an additional $7 billion over the next 5 years. The Republican budget provides hardly any increase in child care to make it easier for American families to afford child care. The Spratt budget provides $11 billion so that a State like Maryland, the only way a person can get on child care today is to go on welfare. What message does that send?

Let us provide help for American families who need safe, affordable child care. This is in the Spratt budget, but the bottom line is we do a better job because we have a more balanced budget on the national debt.

I urge my colleagues to reject this budget and support the Spratt substitute.

Mr. Speaker, the Resolution before us correctly points out the atrocities that Saddam Hussein perpetuated against his own people and the importance to Iraq's future to be free from the oppression of Saddam Hussein. The Resolution properly commends the members of the U.S. Armed Forces for their valiant service. They have made tremendous sacrifices on behalf of their country and have served longer deployments than expected. I extend my condolences to the family members of U.S. soldiers and civilian personnel who have lost their lives in Iraq, as well as to the many thousands of soldiers that were wounded in Iraq. I also express my sorrow and regret for the deaths in Iraq of Coalition forces and United Nations personnel, as well as for the unknown number of Iraqi civilians and other noncombatants that perished in the war. Congress and the Administration have a obligation to provide our troops with all the resources necessary to carry out their ongoing mission.

I am pleased that Iraqi Governing Council has adopted an interim constitution, and that the Council, in cooperation with the international community, is establishing war crimes tribunals in Iraq to create a historical record of the war crimes and crimes against humanity committed by Saddam Hussein and his regime. We must establish an accurate and complete factual record of these crimes, so that we can punish the offenders and deter future war crimes by government officials against their own population.

My support for this resolution in no way signifies my views on other issues beyond the scope of this resolution. This resolution does not offer a complete and balanced chronology of events that led to the U.S. invasion of Iraq. I am most disappointed that both before and after the war in Iraq the United States consistently failed to broadly engage the international community. The Administration is only belatedly seeking international support for our reconstruction efforts in Iraq.

Because of these failures, Americans have paid a heavy price. It is primarily American troops stationed in Iraq that face continuing attacks. It is our taxpayers that are being asked to almost exclusively pay the cost to rebuild Iraq, and these costs are mounting every day. Iraq is already facing a difficult transition in establishing a democracy that operates under the rule of law and protects minority rights. The U.S. must show enough flexibility in working with our allies to effectively help Iraq during this critical transition period, so that other countries will pledge both troops and funds to alleviate the burden on our American soldiers and taxpayers. Ultimately, the best way that we can support our troops is to reach out more aggressively to the international community, establish order and security in Iraq, and transfer authority to the Iraqis in a responsible manner.

Although I support the Resolution, I regret that it was not in order to consider a Motion to Recommit with instructions. The Motion to Recommit would have allowed us to strengthen the resolution by urging the President to: give our troops in Iraq all of the equipment

needed to keep them safe; provide the health care and benefits our wounded servicemen and women earned when they come home as veterans; recognize the key contributions made by our Reserve and Guard components, many of which came from my Congressional district in Maryland.

This Motion would have also asked the President to acknowledge that there were serious deficiencies in United States pre-war intelligence on Iraq, particularly in light of the failure to find any evidence of WMD programs, and to take action to improve our intelligence community so that United States troops are better protected and informed for future conflicts.

Finally, the Motion would have asked the President to seek broader international support for the reconstruction of Iraq, and to take steps to correct the deficiencies of the U.S. Government to plan adequately for the post-war occupation of Iraq.

We should have improved this Resolution to more accurately reflect our ongoing objectives in our involvement in Iraq.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay special tribute to the brave members of the U.S. Naval Reserve unit stationed at the Naval Reserve Center near Ft. McHenry in Baltimore, Maryland. The quick thinking of these Reservists saved the lives of 21 patrons of a Baltimore water taxi when a freak storm capsized their vessel on the afternoon of Saturday, March 6, 2004.

This tragic accident could have been much worse. Approximately 20 Naval Reservists were at the waterfront Reserve Center for weekend exercises when the storm struck. They saw the water taxi, Lady D, flip over and quickly rushed to their ACUV-27 vessel to help the victims of the overturned craft.

Their quick action saved almost all the victims of this tragedy. Unfortunately, one person died and three others are still missing. The survivors of the accident and Coast Guard officials credit the rescue efforts of the Naval Reservists as critical to saving most of those who were on the overturned water taxi in 44 degree waters.

I know, in some respects, it was pure luck that the water taxi capsized so near the Naval Reserve Center and that the Reservists were on site to carry out the rescue. But it also represents the quick action and outstanding bravery and courage of these Reservists.

I hope my colleagues in the U.S. House of Representatives will join me in saluting the members of the Naval Reserve, who, through quick thinking and action, saved the lives of 21 patrons of the Baltimore water taxi accident. While we honor the courage of these Naval Reservists, our hearts and prayers are with the victims of this tragedy and their families.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay special tribute to Timothy F. Maloney who is being honored as Hibernian of the Year. Tim is a partner with the Greenbelt, MD law firm of Joseph Greenwald & Laake, P.A. and is a former member of the Maryland House of Delegates.

He served in the Maryland House of Delegates from 1979 to 1995. When I was Speaker of the Maryland House of Delegates, I came to know and appreciate his many talents and abilities. As a legislator, he chaired subcommittees on higher education, transportation, public safety and capital budgets.

Tim stood out as a gifted legislator who had a great sense of humor. He was known for good fun practical jokes and on more than one occasion I was tempted to call out the Maryland State Police to hunt him down (no comparison to Texas intended). In recent years, he has put these talents to work as the Master of Ceremonies of the annual Hibernian Dinner. This year it is his turn to sit quietly at the head table as his life transgressions are revealed.

Despite certain behavior lapses, he was an extremely able and effective legislator. He was instrumental in the development and funding of numerous capital projects, including the Clarice Smith Performing Arts Center, the Prince George's County Courthouse, the Hyattsville Justice Center and the College Park Airport Museum. His colleagues in the General Assembly voted him as one of the three ``most effective'' members of the General Assembly in the WJLA-TV poll, although there is some question and poll tampering by the Maloney camp.

For the past 15 years, Mr. Maloney has been heavily involved in significant litigation and administrative matters. These include complex litigation in federal and state courts in the District of Columbia and Maryland, and a significant administrative practice before federal, state and local agencies. Surprisingly, he has never been a defendant. He is a member of the District and Maryland Bar, and also is admitted to practice before the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals and the U.S. Supreme Court. He serves on the Rules Committee of the Maryland Court of Appeals, and frequently lectures to state and local bar organizations.

Mr. Maloney has worked tirelessly to improve our community and its many institutions. He is a member of the Executive Committee of the University of Maryland Foundation, the Administrative Board of the Maryland Catholic

Conference, the Board of Trustees of Villa Julie College and the Board of Trustees of Archbishop Carroll High School.

I hope my colleagues in the U.S. House of Representatives will join me in saluting Tim Maloney as a top litigator who has dedicated much of his life to helping others and improving our community.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from California (Mr. Matsui) for yielding me this time.

Let me concur in the comments that the gentleman from California (Mr. Matsui) made earlier where I think he gave a very good explanation, the Government Pension Offset and the issues concerning it and then what is in this bill generally, which have very good things to help shore up a system that is very important to millions of Americans, our Social Security system.

I listened to debate about the Government Pension Offset and the problems in Texas, and I think the point that many of us are trying to raise is that there may be a problem in what is happening in Texas, but why are we not reforming the Government Pension Offset? The distinguished gentleman from Florida (Mr. Shaw) has a bill in to reform that. The gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Jefferson) has a bill in to deal with it.

It is an issue that cries out for reform because we are not treating particularly our lower-wage workers appropriately with the Government Pension Offset. I think we have all acknowledged that this is an issue that we need to take up. This was an excellent opportunity for us to correct it, and we will lose that opportunity.

In regards to the underlying bill itself, I compliment the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Shaw) and the gentleman from California (Mr. Matsui) and Commissioner Barnhart and our colleagues on the other side of the Capitol for working together to develop a bipartisan bill to strengthen Social Security, particularly as it relates to individuals who have disabilities who are collecting Social Security, ``representative payees.''

We know, we have reports, of people who are not able to manage their own money. We know that in 2,400 cases over $12 million dollars has been lost, and this bill will help clean that up, and that is important for us to deal with that.

We also know, in regards to the Ticket to Work law and the Work Incentives program that helped disabled individuals, that we are strengthening those programs. We are helping claimants who are applying for SSI to get the funds that they need.

So there are important provisions in this bill that have been worked out by Democrats and Republicans working together. That is the way we should work. It is a good bill. But we should have taken care of the Government Pension Offset, and we have not done that in this bill.

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words.

Mr. Chairman, to my friend from Texas I would invite him to join as a cosponsor of the bill that I filed along with the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel), the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin), and the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller) that extends unemployment benefits through the jurisdiction of our committee. But I have not noticed his support for that legislation.

Mr. Chairman, many of my colleagues have asked where is the compassion. My question is where are the jobs. Last month we bragged about the growth of employment and we created 1,000 new jobs. Now, that is one new job for every 8,400 unemployed Americans. And we are surprised that people cannot find jobs in our community; 3 million fewer private sector jobs now than 3 years ago. Many people have given up hope because there are no jobs there.

Now, questions have been asked about can the States not take care of this. After all, we made a retransfer of funds, which we do on regular occasions, in order for the States to have money in their basic programs to help people who are unemployed and can keep a modest tax for unemployment benefits. If, in fact, they spent the $5 billion, which has already been obligated, it would trigger in many of our States tax increases. I do not want to do that.

The Federal unemployment trust fund was established for the purpose that it is a national responsibility in tough economic times to provide extra unemployment benefits to people who cannot find jobs. It is a Federal responsibility, not a State responsibility for good reason in that the economic conditions around the Nation are different. Some States may be able to respond, but it is States that are the hardest hit that need the help from the Federal Government.

That is why we established a Federal unemployment trust account, and we have $20 billion in that fund just for this purpose.

That raises the question why are we using this bill as a vehicle in order to provide unemployment benefits for people who are unemployed. And the reason, quite frankly, is that the majority will not give us any other opportunity. Yes, I would prefer to be speaking on the bill that was filed that uses the funds in the Federal unemployment trust accounts to pay for these benefits.

The gentlewoman from Oregon (Ms. Hooley) is on the floor. If my colleagues would sign her discharge on the rule, we will be able to bring that bill up. We are only a few Members short on that. But the majority will not give us that opportunity.

So I congratulate the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller) for giving the membership the opportunity to vote on the issue now. What does this bill do? It follows regular order, the regular rules of this body by establishing an authorization for a program, clear indication to our appropriators that we want it funded, that we believe paying unemployment benefits to unemployed workers, that it is a priority of this Congress, and we want it done now. That is what this vote is about.

Do not try to put a smoke screen up here. We brought this issue to the floor; we have asked for it many times. We now have the chance for a clear vote. And I hope that those who are concerned and believe that we should be helping will vote in favor of it. We have now 90,000 workers exhausting benefits every single week. That is 90,000. This is the highest in the history of our Nation.

A couple of my colleagues have talked about in the 1990s we terminated the unemployment benefit program. Yes, when we had created enough jobs to make up for what was lost; where the exhaustion rate, that is, those who have exhausted State unemployment benefits, was not at an all time level. Today that is the highest levels in the history of keeping those records. The highest levels. We have not returned to the level we were prior to this recession.

The right thing to do is extend the benefits, and this amendment gives us that opportunity.

I heard one of my colleagues talk about, well, the unemployment rate is only 5\1/2\ percent. But understand how we calculate that. The last month, 300,000 have given up even looking for jobs because there are no jobs out there. They do not count officially in the numbers. But we know by the exhaustion rate that we are at the highest possible times.

So, Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the arguments of my colleagues; but when it gets right down to it, it is the needs of the people in our districts that are at stake. If you believe we should be taking care of the people who are unemployed, that they need our assistance at this time, vote for the Miller amendment.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay special tribute to Gary Vikan as he celebrates 10 years as Director of the Walters Art Museum in Baltimore. The Walters Art Museum is one of the most important cultural institutions in Baltimore. It is loved and cherished by the thousands and thousands of people who visit it every year.

During the 19th and early 20th centuries, William Thompson Walters and his son, Henry, collected nearly 22,000 works of art, building the foundation for what would later become the Walters Art Museum. The museum was first opened to the public in 1934. In 1974, a new, larger wing opened on the corner of Centre and Cathedral streets. In 1991, the museum opened another building, the Hackerman House, to hold much of its Asian art collection.

Since taking the helm of the Walters in 1994, Mr. Vikan has presided over a major renovation of the museum and expansion of its collection. As Director, he helped raise $3 million to renovate the Centre Street building, and another $8 million to reinstall the Renaissance and Baroque collections. During his tenure, the museum's endowment has grown from $38 million to $60 million, and its membership has increased by more than 60 percent.

He has been responsible for securing three major collections: the John and Berthe Ford Collection of Arts of India, Nepal and Tibet; the Austen-Stokes Foundation Collection of the Arts of the Ancient Americans (10 year loan); and the Doris Duke Charitable Foundation Collection of South-East Asian Art. Between 1995 and 2003, Mr. Vikan assembled the finest collection of Ethiopian art outside Ethiopia.

The Walters is internationally renowned for its vast collection that ranges from predynastic Egypt to 20th century Europe. The many treasures in the collection include Greek sculptures and Roman sarcophagi; medieval ivories and Old Master paintings; Art Deco jewelry and 19th century masterpieces.

I hope my colleagues in the U.S. House of Representatives will join me in saluting Gary Vikan, Director of the Walters Art Museum, as we all celebrate and applaud 10 years of outstanding leadership and vision.