Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to commend and congratulate the Black/Jewish Forum of Baltimore, Inc. (BLEWS) upon their 25th anniversary, an event that is being celebrated at BLEWS annual dinner meeting on November 19, 2003.

Since its inception, BLEWS has acted to further understanding and cooperation between the African-American and Jewish communities in the Baltimore Metropolitan Area. Through a variety of programs and through dialogue, BLEWS has worked to overcome intolerance, discrimination, hate crimes and stereotypes. BLEWS has participated in the U.S. Attorney's Hate Crimes Task Force, assisted in defusing intergroup tensions at universities and helped community groups deal with hate crimes and diversity issues.

For the past 5 years, BLEWS has focused on its Youth Initiative with funding from several foundations. The Youth Initiative has conducted intensive all-day workshops for African-American and Jewish high school students to expose them to each other's history and culture, to dispel stereotypes and to encourage attitudes of tolerance, understanding and cooperation. These youth also have been taken to museums, plays, films and other activities that encourage friendship, greater understanding and community service.

Every spring, the high school students participate in a Jewish Passover/African-American Overcome Seder meal that celebrates the theme of freedom. Because of their outstanding work in intergroup relations, BLEWS was recognized by President Clinton as one of the ``President's Promising Practices In Race Relations.''

I hope my colleagues in the U.S. House of Representatives will join me in saluting BLEWS, a model youth organization that is worth replicating elsewhere in the United States.

Madam Speaker, let me thank the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Larson) for yielding me this time and for the work that he has done on this resolution in pointing out that the principal sponsor, the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cummings), who introduced this resolution, could not be here today because of attending the funeral for the spouse of one of our colleagues. Let me also thank the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Ney) for his leadership on this issue.

Madam Speaker, I rise in support of H.J. Res. 52, which recognizes the Dr. Samuel D. Harris National Museum of Dentistry as the official national museum of dentistry in the United States.

For many years, the importance of oral health has been underestimated. Only in recent years have we recognized that, in the words of the former Surgeon General, C. Everett Koop, ``There is no health without oral health.''

We have learned the important linkage between plaque and heart disease; that chewing stimulates brain cell growth; and that gum disease can signal diabetes, liver ailments, and hormone imbalances. Yet many Americans are still unaware of how critical oral health hygiene is to good health care. Despite our advances in reducing dental disease, one in five American children still suffer the devastating effects of severe tooth decay. I am proud that in Baltimore, Maryland, the Dr. Samuel D. Harris Museum of Dentistry is helping to reverse this epidemic by spreading the message that preventive dental health for children is key.

Dr. Samuel Harris is a retired pediatric dentist who was born in the Ukraine and educated at the University of Michigan. He once said of the museum he helped found, ``Our main purpose must be to educate, to teach people, especially children, something important about themselves. That way they live not only longer, but better, healthier lives. I think that is a noble goal.''

One visit to the National Museum of Dentistry in Baltimore is proof that Dr. Harris's goal has not only been met, it has been surpassed.

Located at the University of Maryland School of Dentistry in Baltimore, the first dental school in the Nation, the Dr. Samuel D. Harris National Museum of Dentistry opened in 1996. The museum's permanent exhibits feature a display of historic dental tools, including the first known toothbrush made out of twigs. Among its most famous artifacts, as pointed out by the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Ney), are several sets of George Washington's ivory dentures and Queen Victoria's personal dental instruments.

The museum also contains the actual office of Dr. G. V. Black, who is known as the ``father of American dentistry.'' Children especially like the tooth-shaped jukebox that plays vintage toothpaste commercials, computers that teach tooth anatomy, several interactive displays on oral health, and an extensive library of children's books, including several histories about the tooth fairy. One of my favorite exhibits is the scaled-down dentistry office where children can don smocks and review an x-ray panel as they play dentist and examine each other's or their parents' teeth.

Each year, more than 10,000 visitors pass through its doors, including 4,000 schoolchildren. In addition to school and family programs, the museum hosts a variety of symposia for adults and dental health professionals, attracting visitors from across the Nation. Over the years, it has become an invaluable resource for understanding the history of dentistry and the importance of oral care.

I want to thank the House for considering this resolution, which recognizes the museum, an affiliate of the Smithsonian Institution, as the Official National Museum of Dentistry in the United States. I urge all of my colleagues to visit the museum in nearby Baltimore or its Web site at www.dentalmuseum.org, and to support this resolution.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay special tribute to one of Baltimore's leading law firms--Ober, Kaler, Grimes and Shriver--as it celebrates its 100th anniversary. The firm was founded in 1903 when Stuart S. Janney and Albert C. Ritchie merged their practices into Ritchie and Janney.

After World War I, the firm became Ritchie, Janney, Ober and Williams when Frank B. Ober and Robert Williams joined the practice. Another merger in 1969 changed the name to Ober, Grimes and Shriver. The current name of the firm--Ober, Kaler, Grimes and Shriver--resulted from a merger in 1983 with the Washington, D.C. firm of Kaler, Daniel, Worsley and Hollman.

Most often referred to as Ober/Kaler, this law firm has produced two Maryland governors. In 1920, Albert Ritchie left the firm to begin an unprecedented 16-years as governor of Maryland. He returned to the firm after rejecting President Franklin D. Roosevelt's invitation to be his vice presidential running mate. Gov. Robert Ehrlich, the current governor of Maryland, practiced law for 12 years at Ober/Kaler.

Ober/Kaler is a lawyer's law firm. With more than 120 lawyers, and offices in Washington, D.C., Maryland and Virginia, the firm serves a national and international roster of clients in litigation, regulatory and transactional issues, as well as various other areas of the law. It provides outstanding legal advice to both businesses and individuals, including clients engaged in health care, construction, equipment leasing, banking, secured financing and other industries.

I hope my colleagues in the U.S. House of Representatives will join me in saluting Ober, Kaler, Grimes and Shriver as it celebrates 100 years of providing its clients with excellent legal advice.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay special tribute to Dr. Morton I. Rapoport, former President and CEO of the University of Maryland Medical System. Dr. Rapoport has been recognized nationally and internationally as one of the world's top hospital administrators. Under his leadership, the Medical System

has made substantial improvements in the quality of patient care and services. He also has been a close friend and adviser to me for many years on health care issues, and I have great confidence in his judgement and insight.

Dr. Rapoport took over stewardship of the Medical System in 1984. Since then, he has transformed the University of Maryland Hospital from a public institution with annual operating losses in the millions to a successful private corporation with a record of strong financial performance and renowned clinical programs. The Medical System now includes University Hospital, the R Adams Cowley Shock Trauma Center, the Marlene and Stewart Greenebaum Cancer Center, Maryland's Hospital for Children, Kernan Hospital, University Speciality Hospital, Maryland General Health Systems and the North Arundel Health System.

Dr. Rapoport is a Baltimore native who attended my alma mater Baltimore City College and University of Maryland School of Medicine. He conducted research on infectious diseases and served as associate dean of the medical school before taking over as head of University Hospital in 1982. In 1984, Dr. Rapoport was appointed President and CEO of the newly created UM Medical System.

Before retiring, Dr. Rapoport oversaw planning and construction of the Harry and Jeanette Weinberg Building, a $150 million facility to house operating rooms of the future and a new adult and pediatric emergency department. On Nov. 15, 2003, at a special gala, it will be announced that the atrium in the new Weinberg Building will be named in honor of Dr. Rapoport and his wife, Rosalie.

I hope my colleagues in the U.S. House of Representatives will join me in saluting Dr. Morton I. Rapoport for his dedication, leadership and vision in helping the University of Maryland Medical System become one of the most respected institutions in this country and in the world.

Madam Speaker, reserving the right to object, I do not intend to object, but under my reservation, I yield to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Wu).

Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from Connecticut.

Madam Speaker, under my reservation, let me just compliment the gentleman from Oregon for raising this issue. There are States that have operated under waiver authority that has expired. I can assure you, although we have not been able to work out a bipartisan bill, there is bipartisan agreement to maintain the flexibility of the States under the waiver authority. I know that there are efforts to extend it and expand it, but at least there is agreement that we want to maintain at least where the States are today in their ability to use authority to tailor programs for their individual State needs. That is a bipartisan understanding, and I believe, also, there is a lot of support in the other body.

I thank the gentleman for raising these issues, because I think they are very important as we move forward in the debate, not only to Oregon but to other States. I know the gentleman is fighting very hard for his own State. We appreciate that very much. We certainly do not want to see a diminished ability of your State to perform its services.

Madam Speaker, before I yield to the gentlewoman from Connecticut, it has been the position at least of this body by its formal actions to expand the authority to what is known as a superwaiver. That is controversial, and I am not sure there is certainly not an agreement on a bipartisan basis for a superwaiver; however, the superwaiver sort of consumes the individual State waivers. It is certainly the position of the majority of this House on both sides of the aisle that the States have at least the waiver authorities that they had under the expiring TANF laws. I will be glad to yield to the gentlewoman from Connecticut, but I am not certain that there is an agreement right now as to individual State waivers as compared to broader authority. I can tell the position that I would like to see is individual States, but I understand there is no consensus yet on that issue.

Further reserving the right to object, I yield to the gentlewoman from Connecticut.

Madam Speaker, I appreciate what the gentlewoman said. I think it is, in fairness to the gentleman from Oregon, certainly our desire to make sure the States maintain the type of authority Oregon has been able to use to create creative programs, and I really do thank the gentleman for bringing this to our attention. It is a very important issue to our States.

Further reserving the right to object, I yield to the gentleman from Oregon.

Madam Speaker, I think the gentlewoman has already answered that. Further reserving the right to object, I yield to the gentlewoman from Connecticut again if she wants to further clarify it.

Further reserving the right to object, I yield to the gentleman from Oregon.

Madam Speaker, further reserving my right to object, just to respond to the gentleman, I agree completely with what he has said, and it has been the position of some of us to do the extension of individual States that had it prior to the expiration of the bill. There has been a consensus, as I have indicated before, to give States at least that flexibility; and the majority has decided to go beyond that with the superwaiver in this body. So the gentleman's point is very well stated, which I happen to personally agree with; and I appreciate his bringing it to our attention.

Madam Speaker, this is very important legislation. It extends the TANF programs and related programs for the next 6 months so that we can try to work out a long-term, multiyear extension of the TANF programs and related programs. I thank the gentlewoman for bringing this legislation forward.

I yield to the gentlewoman from Connecticut.

Madam Speaker, I withdraw my reservation of objection.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise also in support of the legislation and urge my colleagues to support it. I agree with the gentleman from California (Mr. Herger), the chairman of the subcommittee, regarding the need to enact this legislation. However, I want to make it clear I disagree with my subcommittee chairman on many of the statements made as to the reason why we are at this point, why we need to enact a temporary extension of our TANF law rather than a permanent extension.

This bill is important because it allows our States to know that for the next 6 months they will have uninterrupted Federal funds to continue their work on dealing with the people who are the most vulnerable, that we are trying to get off of cash assistance, into real jobs.

However, we have made that task more difficult because we cannot pass a long-term reauthorization, and we cannot pass a long-term reauthorization because this body, in passing its bill, did not do what our chairman asked us to do, and that is to reach a consensus to try to work together as Democrats and Republicans to build upon the success of 1996. Instead, we had a very partisan bill that passed this body and that has made it very difficult to reconcile with the other body.

We passed a bill that was opposed by our Governors, by our mayors, by State welfare administrators, by poverty experts and advocates for low- income families; and the reason, quite frankly, is because it did not reauthorize TANF and take us to the next level, which would be to get families not just off of cash assistance but out of poverty. Instead, the bill that passed this body created what is known as ``make-work'' opportunities rather than real jobs. It provided mandates on our States without providing the funds to deal with it. It made it more difficult for people who are the most in need of training and education to get the training and education they need in order to succeed in the workforce. It discriminated, and continues the discrimination, against legal immigrants.

For all these reasons, the bill that passed this body made it more difficult for us to reconcile differences with the other body and to enact reauthorization of TANF that we all could be very proud of.

Mr. Speaker, I hope we use this opportunity, the next 6 months, to sit down together and listen to each other, listen to our mutual objectives as to what we are trying to achieve in welfare reauthorization, so that we can pass a bill that we will be proud of that will take us to the next plateau and allow us to move families out of poverty and not just off of cash assistance.

I might point out that this legislation extends the traditional Medicaid that continues families with health insurance after they have left the welfare rolls. That is a very important program. It also extends the IRS user fees for certain advanced rulings and allows the IRS to continue to share information with the Department of Education to administer the student loan programs; custom user fees will be extended for 6 months; Medicare premiums for low-income seniors, that program that pays those premiums would be extended. There is a lot in this bill that we have to make sure is accomplished before the expiration at the end of this fiscal year, and I encourage my colleagues to support this bill.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 7 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin), the person who is the author of provisions that would enforce a real work requirement on our States by rewarding those States who find real jobs for people who leave cash assistance.

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

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

Let me just say in closing, with what the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin) said, I concur. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation. Let me just underscore the point, though, in 1996 we got it right. We got it right because we listened to each other, and we listened to the needs, and we realized by doing that we could transform the old welfare system into a system that encourages people to get off of cash assistance and to be employed.

The bill that passed this body is a step backwards. My friend from Pennsylvania said we will not take a step backwards. The legislation that passed that body did that. It was one size fits all. In 1996 we said we would trust local governments, our States, to craft the programs necessary to meet their constituency. Now we are going back, according what passed this body, to one size fits all from Washington. That is inconsistent with what we did in 1996, which was the right way to go.

Secondly, we said in 1996, let people who are on welfare, on cash assistance, get the education and job training they need in order to get permanent employment. The legislation that passed this body takes a step backwards on that, restricting the ability of the States to allow welfare recipients to get the necessary education and training that they need. In 1996 we said they cannot do this unless they provide child care to the States so they could provide help to take care of the children. That is what we said in 1996. And yet in the bill that passed this body, we did not recognize that. Instead, we put unfunded mandates on the States and did not provide the necessary resources for child care. So I would hope that we will use the next 6 months to correct this.

Let me just say in the backdrop, as we are debating this today, the poverty rates in this Nation are actually increasing among children. Our States, almost all have cut their child care money because of their budget problems. The needs for us to act now is greater than it was a year ago when we originally passed the bill in this body. So I would hope that we would look at the current situation. Our States are spending more of their TANF funds every year than they are receiving in the annual authorization. The needs are there.

Yes, let us step up to the plate like we did in 1996. Let us work together in a bipartisan way. Let us be committed to get families not just off of cash assistance, but out of poverty, and if we will sit down and talk together, I am sure in the next 6 months we can come up with a bill we all can be proud of that will be supported by our States. If not, I am afraid the gentleman from Michigan's (Mr. Levin) prediction will

come true, and we will be again looking at another short-term fix.

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

Mr. Chairman, first let me thank the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Costello) and the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Duncan) for their work on this important legislation and the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young) and the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar).

They have brought out a well-balanced Water Resources Development Act, and we appreciate that. This is a good bill for our Nation. It is a good bill for the people that I represent, and I thank them very much for their courtesies.

I particularly wanted to mention a project authorized in the manager's amendment to restore the stream ecosystem of the Gwynns Falls in Baltimore City. This is a complicated project that has been under study by the Corps and local jurisdictions now since we first authorized the study in April of 1992; so it has been a long time.

The authorization of this ecosystem restoration stream builds on the successful work we have on a greenway/bikepath through the Gwynns Falls. It also is an important part of the Chesapeake Bay program for improving the quality of the water along the bay. We now understand that our watersheds, our streams are a very important part of our work to restore the Chesapeake Bay, and the work done along the Gwynns Falls will be very helpful in that regard.

Let me also mention the fact that Baltimore is currently under a court order to replace its aging sewer system. We need to modernize our sewer system. In doing the work along the Gwynns Falls, we also will be advancing the work of the replacement of our aged sewer system. So for all these reasons, this project is a win-win for our environment, for the appropriate use of our lands. And I want to thank all of them for including this project. I know it was complicated. I know it was difficult, and we thank them very much.

Mr. Speaker, first let me compliment the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Blunt), the sponsor of this legislation, and the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Ford) for reaching, I think, a fair compromise on some very controversial issues so that we really do have a chance to enact a bill this year that can help our faith-based institutions, our nonprofit institutions in carrying out their very important responsibility. Major compromises were reached along with Senator Lieberman and Senator Santorum in the Senate that would provide our sponsors in the House to eliminate from the bill a very controversial provision dealing with employment discrimination. I know that many of our Members have been concerned about that. Those provisions are not included in this legislation, and I want to compliment all involved who were responsible for the removal of that provision.

I also want to compliment the architects of this legislation for working out a fair compromise as it relates to a foundation's administrative costs. We have a fair compromise on that issue that puts some Federal controls on administrative costs but also allows the foundations to be able to do their business in the most cost-effective way.

In my view, this legislation is a positive help to faith-based institutions, nonprofit institutions and is consistent with the tradition of our country to maintain the church-state separation. There is help here for those who want to privately give, whether they be individuals or corporations, to our nonprofit community through the use of direct contributions or their IRAs.

Mr. Speaker, let me also agree with the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Ryan) in regards to the provisions relating to housing.

I think this bill is a positive bill. I agree with the distinguished Republican whip that this bill has moved in a bipartisan way through this body and through the other body and we therefore have a good bill before us. I would urge my good friend to continue that process and let Members vote their convictions on the amendment that I will be offering a little bit later.

It includes two more provisions. It builds on the underlying bill but adds two more provisions that has strong bipartisan support not only in this body but also the other body. It provides an extra $1.1 billion for the social services block grant program. In 1996, we were financing the social services block grant program at $2.8 billion a year. We cut it in the welfare bill to $2.38 billion a year but we made a commitment in that legislation that we would restore that cut in 2003. That is exactly what the Cardin amendment will do. And it has strong bipartisan support. Many Members on the Republican side of the Committee on Ways and Means support that change. I hope they will vote that way today. It is vitally important to our faith-based institutions.

Let me just give my colleagues one example. Catholic Charities relies upon public programs for 62 percent of their support. The social services block grant program is a very important part of that. It provides day care for low-income families, offers counseling services to at-risk youth, provides nutritional assistance to the elderly and provides community-based care to the disabled. This is their number one priority as far as help in order to be able to carry out their very important mission.

The second change is that the bill is fully paid for by closing corporate loopholes through tax shelters. I know that a document was sent out that says this is extremely controversial. If it is extremely controversial, why did 95 members of the other body vote in favor of it? It passed 95 to 3 or 4 in the Senate. It is not controversial. It is controversial to add $13 billion more to the national debt and not pay for it. So this amendment pays for the cost of the bill through a provision that is good tax policy.

Our deficit this year is projected to grow by over $500 billion. That does not even include the $87 billion that the President has asked us to pass by a supplemental appropriation to prosecute the war in Iraq and Afghanistan. What my amendment will do is close tax shelters by codifying the practice of the courts that will bring in moneys from activities that have no economic value. It is what the other body did to pay for it.

There is one more thing I might add. We are in the closing days of this first session of this Congress. Major differences between the House and Senate will have difficult times being reconciled in conference. The adoption of my amendment gives us a much better chance to get this bill to the President this year. I urge my colleagues not only to support the underlying bill, support the Cardin amendment so that we can get a bill to the President and that we can also accomplish two more important factors that I think are supported on a bipartisan basis. I urge support for the amendment that will be offered later and I hope that we can continue to work in a bipartisan way to get this bill to the President's desk.

Mr. Speaker, I offer an amendment in the nature of a substitute.

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

Mr. Speaker, this amendment adds two important provisions to the underlying legislation. As I mentioned during general debate, I support the underlying bill. I think a good compromise has been reached on some very important issues, including the elimination of the employment discrimination provisions and a compromise in regards to foundations' administrative costs. I think this bill will help nonprofit, faith- based organizations consistent with our tradition of church and State.

The two additions that my amendment adds are very important to this legislation. The Republican whip pointed out that this legislation has been developed among Democrats and Republicans in a bipartisan way and in cooperation with the other body, particularly Senator Lieberman and Senator Santorum. All I ask is that the Members consider this amendment and vote on it by their convictions. Both provisions have bipartisan support.

The first provision adds an additional $1.1 billion to the next fiscal year for the social services block grant, taking it from $1.7 billion to $2.8 billion. This is not a novel concept. I see the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Mrs. Johnson) here who was very instrumental in the social services block grant program and in the welfare reform legislation. When we passed welfare reform in 1996, we reduced the social services block grant from $2.8 billion to $2.38 billion, but we also included in that legislation a commitment to our States that in 2003 we would reinstate the level at $2.8 billion. That is exactly what this amendment would do.

Number two, this amendment is consistent with the other body. They have already put the money in their reported bill. It puts us together with the other body at $2.8 billion for next year.

Now, what is the social services block grant? Why is it so relevant to the legislation that is before us? If we ask the faith-based groups as to what is the most important funding source for them to be able to do their work, they will tell us it is the social services block grant program. It provides funding for day care for low-income families, for offering counseling services to at-risk children, nutritional assistance to the elderly, and providing community-based care to the disabled.

I need not tell my colleagues the fiscal restraints that our States are currently confronting, with record deficits, and they are forced to cut these very programs that the social services block grant program helps them to fund. For my own State of Maryland, this amendment will mean $20 million; for the State of California, $132 million; for the State of Texas, $81 million; New York, $73 million; Florida, $63 million. If we take a look at our major faith-based institutions such as Catholic Charities, United Jewish Community, Lutheran Services, Salvation Army, in each one of those cases they rely in large part on government assistance to fund these community-based programs. For Catholic Charities it is over 650 percent; 62 percent of their support comes from governmental grants. The social services block grant program is key. This amendment allows us to live

up to our commitment that we made in 1996 to restore the level to what it was in 1996.

The second part of this amendment is for fiscal responsibility. I think there is not a person in this body who has not lamented the fact that we now have over $500 billion annual deficit that we are adding to the national debt, and that does not include the $87 billion the President has requested for Iraq and Afghanistan. We have a fiscal responsibility as legislators to make sure we do not add more to that national debt. That is why the other body reached out to find a revenue offset to the bill that they reported.

My amendment is not original. We have taken basically the provisions that were included in the other body to say that if you are doing a tax shelter you should not get the benefit. The courts are already doing that, and the revenues that it will generate will offset the revenues that are lost under this bill so that we do not add to the deficit.

Now, I have gotten some material this morning and I have listened to the debate as to why this would not be a good idea. I have heard that there was a sheet put out that said this was extremely controversial. I then listened to why it was extremely controversial, considering it received 95 votes in the other body. The first reason that my colleague said is that it would be administratively difficult. Well, this is currently being done by the courts on a case-by-case basis. We have a responsibility as the legislature to clarify this law. We should not be doing tax policy in our courts. That is our responsibility.

I have not heard one complaint against the fact that tax shelters should be outlawed and there should be penalties for tax shelters. This bill deals with it in a responsible way.

The second point I have heard is that it is retroactive. Now, let me tell my colleagues, the date in this bill is what we have done by tradition in this body since I have been here and well before that. When a bill is noted by a committee, they use that as the effective date, and that is exactly what is in the bill that was reported by the other body. We incorporate that same date. Now, if that is retroactivity, the other side has been guilty of it many, many times. So let us be at least straightforward in the debate. Let people vote their convictions. We should pay for the bill and we should provide help to the faith-based organizations in our States through the social services block grant that many of us have supported in the past.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support the amendment.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Doggett).

Mr. Speaker, I believe I control the time.

Mr. Speaker, I have no objection to the gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas) getting time from the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Blunt) to respond.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds.

To clarify some of the points that my chairman made, when he referred to the States having all this TANF money that is left over, let me point out that the States are currently spending more money every year in TANF funds than they currently receive and that they have obligated almost all of their money. The 10 percent transfer authority has been approved every year. That is nothing new. So when he mentions these issues I think we need to clarify that. And on the effective dates we are following the tradition of this House under Republican leadership. There is really nothing new this year.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin).

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Edwards).

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

Let me just point out to my friend from Connecticut that the transfer authority will have no impact on her State since her State's obligated all of their TANF funds.

Let me point out to my friend from Missouri (Mr. Blunt), if we want to do something for the military, the bill is sitting at the desk from the other body. We could take it up and get it done before we leave here this afternoon.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Tierney).

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

I am curious why my friend from California points out that the Social Services Block Grant is not part of this legislation, even though all the faith-based nonprofit groups say it is very important to them, why the underlying bill provides transfer authority to the Social Services Block Grant from TANF if it is not relevant to this legislation. Maybe the gentleman from California will try to answer that.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Oregon (Ms. Hooley).

Mr. Speaker, may I inquire as to the time that remains?

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Doggett).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Edwards).

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

Mr. Speaker, in closing, first let me reiterate what I said earlier. I support the underlying bill. I think the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Blunt) and the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Ford) have done an excellent job in bringing forth an excellent bill, and I compliment them for that.

I noticed that many of the speakers on the opposition side of my amendment were speaking in support of the underlying bill which I support and which is incorporated in the amendment that I offer. I want to make it clear if Members support the underlying bill, they can certainly support this amendment, as the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Ford) supports this amendment.

So let me deal with the points which have been made in opposition to this amendment. I hope Members will take this into consideration when voting on the amendment.

First, the issue of relevancy has been waged as to why the social services block grant is included in this underlying bill. As pointed out, the underlying bill includes the TANF legislation giving authorization for the transfer of social services block grants. If it is relevant for the body of the bill, it is certainly relevant for our amendment.

Secondly, if we ask the charitable groups as to what will help them the most in carrying out the social functions that we want them to do, they all support the increasing of the social services block grant. The next issue which has been raised is do the States really need this and are the funds really necessary? After all, we have TANF reserves.

As I pointed out, the States are spending more every year in TANF funds than they are receiving from the Federal Government. They are running deficits right now.

In regards to the multiyear authorization, almost all those funds have been committed. If you look at the deficits our States are currently confronting in their budgets, it is just intuitive that we know they need the money. Lastly, this was a commitment we made when we passed welfare reform, that we would restore the social services block grant funds in 2003. Congress should live up to its commitment. They should adopt that amendment.

Then I hear criticisms about the offset. I hear that it is going to be hard to enforce. It is our responsibility to clarify the law. Currently it is being implemented by the court on a case-by-case basis. That is certainly not in the best interest of tax policy. It is our responsibility to do that. The way that we have drafted this in regards to effective dates, et cetera, is consistent with the prior policy of this body in passing tax legislation. We frequently note dates and that is exactly what the other body did. This is very consistent.

Then lastly, Mr. Speaker, I have heard just about every Member lament the fact that we are adding to the national debt and we have to do something about it, that we have to exercise fiscal restraint. When are we going to do it? Here is an easy one, my colleagues. This is an easy one. Closing a loophole that if you ask any tax accountant or tax attorney, they will tell you it is the right thing to do. Shelters do not help our economy. That is why the courts are taking it on when we should be taking it on and that is why the other body passed it in their legislation. It is time for us to stand up to our responsibility, to do the right thing. This is a bipartisan bill. Both of these recommendations have been brought forward with bipartisan support, both the increase in the social services block grant and the funding mechanism. It passed the other body by a vote of 95 to 5.

The last point I make, Mr. Speaker, is that we have a lot of work to do between now and adjournment. The more work we put in conference, the less likely it is going to come out of conference. Here is our chance to really make it likely that we could enact a bill that is going to help our charitable groups by moving closer to the other body consistent with the policy of this

body, consistent with both Democrats and Republicans. I urge my colleagues to continue the tradition of this legislation which has moved in a bipartisan manner and look at this amendment objectively. I hope you will vote with me. Vote your conscience. Vote in support of the Cardin amendment.

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

Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not present.

Mr. Speaker, let me just try to correct the record here.

First, the gentlewoman says this program's voluntary. It is not. It affects all of our seniors because my colleagues are affecting their basic program under Medicare fee-for-service which they are changing into a voucher program.

Secondly, GAO indicates one-third of our seniors who currently have prescription drug coverage will lose their coverage as a result of the passage of this bill.

My colleague mentioned the fact of cost. Yet they should mention the actuaries say we do not save one dime as a result of the passage of this bill; and quoting Mr. Scully, who is the administrator of the program, you know, the bankruptcy problem is a label, largely a cash flow problem, but is the Republican Medicare bill going to save money versus the original program? The answer is no.

Let us be frank about it and then we look at the Medicare trustees report which shows we have the healthiest trust fund we have had in recent histories. Let us be straight and honest with the facts. The fact of the matter is that if my colleagues would have adopted our amendment to the bill on setting price, we would have adopted the Canadian system and brought the prices down to what we are paying in Canada, but they rejected that approach.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to congratulate the Employee Benefit Research Institute on its twenty-fifth anniversary. Since coming to Congress, one of my ongoing legislative priorities has been to ensure that America's workers will enjoy retirement security when they end their careers. When I think of those who have helped educate me and my colleagues--and the public--about the issues and challenges facing workers, the Employee Benefit Research Institute is high on the list. Indeed, without their high quality research and analysis, few would fully comprehend the problems we face and the viable options for solving them.

EBRI has provided this service for a quarter century, and it has established an impressive track record on issues ranging from Social Security to health benefits, as well as a panoply of private pension issues. EBRI's data is reliable and its analyses helpful. Their reports are uniquely useful because rather than recommend approaches, EBRI simply lays out the options for policymakers.

In today's often partisan atmosphere, EBRI's focus on the facts is particularly welcome. By doing so, they often provide common ground where those with differing ideological stances can reach compromise. I hope my colleagues will join me in congratulating EBRI on its 25 years of service, and I look forward to relying on its counsel in the years to come.

Mr. Chairman, first let me thank my good friend from Pennsylvania for yielding me this time and his generosity.

In my congressional district, the Third District of Maryland, I represent 110 District of Columbia residents. They live at the Oak Hill detention center, a maximum security campus in Laurel, Maryland, approximately 30 miles from Washington. It is located on more than 600 acres of Federal land adjacent to the National Security Agency. The facility was originally constructed 50 years ago. Few renovations have been made since then, and the campus is now in a severe state of neglect and disrepair, littered with partially-boarded abandoned buildings that are frequently broken into and set afire. Roughly half the children at Oak Hill have been convicted of crimes and sentenced to a term there, and the other half are detainees awaiting trial. Their average length of stay is more than 8 months.

A 2001 mayoral commission recommended closing Oak Hill and placing youth offenders in a network of residential treatment facilities, community-based group homes and other less restrictive settings. I support the commission's recommendations, including the closing of Oak Hill. Some progress has been made toward that goal, including beginning construction of a pretrial holding facility in northeast Washington that should reduce by 50 percent the number of children housed at Oak Hill.

July's four-part series in the Washington Post documented a near complete breakdown of the community-based rehabilitative care system that now exists for the District's youth offenders. The District needs to develop an appropriate community-based system for its juvenile offenders.

In addition, because the District of Columbia has only one residential treatment center which is plagued by alleged physical and sexual abuse, the city must send many of its children to lengthy stays out of State. Currently 400 District children are in residential treatment centers, some as far away as Arizona, at a conservative cost of $25 million a year.

Mayor Williams recently acknowledged that his juvenile justice system is in a state of serious dysfunction and has pledged to take corrective measures. But he was also quoted as saying, ``There hasn't been an embrace, at the agency level, of the issue. There hasn't been the sense of urgency.'' I would tell the mayor that there is a sense of urgency for both the District of Columbia and in my district in Maryland.

I recently had the opportunity to meet with the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton) and Deputy Mayor Carolyn Graham, and I subsequently visited Oak Hill. There I met with youth services administrator Gayle Turner and her staff and I toured the facility and surrounding grounds. I was impressed by the progress we were making. As a result of our initial discussions, they were moving in the right direction: toward razing the dilapidated structures that are beyond rehabilitation and toward developing proposals to make more cost- effective and more appropriate use of the land. That is why I was disappointed that both of the individuals I met with positions were terminated and no longer are there.

Today's debate is about funding the District of Columbia, but this issue involves more than appropriate funding levels. This is about the best course of treatment of these children, the best way to ensure the safety of our communities and the most appropriate use of Federal land.

Mr. Chairman, as the representative of the community surrounding Oak Hill, I look forward to working to help improve the state of juvenile justice services for the District of Columbia. I might also point out that the Federal land on which Oak Hill is located is a prime site for expansion of NSA and for the State of Maryland and Anne Arundel County to develop environmental, recreational and economic opportunities.

I hope to continue working with the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton), with the members of the Subcommittee on the District of Columbia, and with Mayor Williams and the city council to develop the right solutions for all involved.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay special tribute to Dana M. Stein, executive director and cofounder of Civic Works, Inc., a non- profit youth corps that has provided critically needed services to the Baltimore area since 1993. Mr. Stein's leadership of Civic Works has transformed the organization into an outstanding AmeriCorps program-- helping the community and teaching new skills to young adults.

Mr. Stein has dedicated his career to helping improve our community. He has a B.A. degree from Harvard University and a law degree from Columbia University. In 1985, he received a Masters in Public Affairs from Princeton University. He has used his knowledge and skills to reach out to others and to make a difference.

Under his direction, approximately 200 Civic Works' participants help rehabilitate low-income housing, build urban parks and gardens, clean and restore urban vacant lots and tutor and mentor school-age children. While providing important services that would otherwise go undone, Civic Works' participants also receive help in their education and citizenship skills.

Civic Works has been recognized for its successes. In 1999, it was awarded the PEPNet Award from the National Youth Education Coalition (NYEC). It also is a four-time YouthBuild sub-grantee and has been recognized through the 2003 National Association of Services and Conservation Corps Excellence in Corps Operations.

I hope my colleagues in the U.S. House of Representatives will join me in saluting Dana M. Stein on the 10th Anniversary of Civic Works. He is a committed American who understands how to build a better community.

Mr. Speaker, the words most often used to describe Eddie Murray are ``team-player,'' ``reliable,'' ``steady,'' and ``clutch- player.'' What these words fail to convey is just how much fun it was to watch Eddie play, particularly for the Orioles, particularly in Memorial Stadium where he spent his first 12 years as a professional baseball player. He helped the team excel in every way, from winning a World Series and a pair of American League Championships, to being an exciting home team to root for at the ballpark.

This wonderful and often under appreciated ball player known in my hometown simply as ``Eddie'' will be inducted into the Baseball Hall of Fame this weekend in the first year he is eligible. The statistics are important, and they show just how steady and yet remarkable Eddie's career was: Eddie Murray is one of three players (the other two are Hank Aaron and Willie Mays) to hit over a lifetime 500 home runs and 3,000 hits. He is the only switch hitter to accomplish this feat. He homered from both sides of the plate in 11 games--a Major League record. He was the 1977 American League Rookie of the Year, an 8-time All-Star (in both Leagues), a 3-time Golden Glove winner, and shares the distinction with Cal Ripken and Pete Rose of playing at least 150 games in 16 seasons--all in a career that was 20 years long. He ranks 2nd in all-time career grand slams with 19. He ranks 8th all-time in RBIs, 17th in home runs, 12th in hits. He holds the Major League record for games played and assists by a first baseman. He batted in 1,917 RBIs--more than 75 a season in 20 consecutive seasons.

He hit 996 RBIs in the 80's--the most any player hit in the decade-- and was known for being able to play his best in situations where his team needed him the most. Murray was a career .410 hitter with the bases loaded. In fact, he hit 117 game-winning RBIs, an American League record, and hit a Major League record 128 sacrifice flies. Murray was in every way the ultimate clutch player and a team player who thought of the team and the game before his own glory. In total, he hit 504 home runs, 3,255 hits, and played for the Orioles, the Dodgers, the Mets, the Indians, and the Angels. But he started his career and hit his 500th home run in Baltimore, and he will be inducted on Sunday as an Oriole. We are proud to claim him.

Eddie Murray told the Baltimore Sun in January when he found out about the induction: ``The 500 home runs, to me, is the most mind- boggling, because I didn't think I was strong enough. I never thought of myself as a home-run hitter.'' He gave back to other players, on the field with his selfless play and off. When Cal Ripken broke Lou Gehrig's record, he singled his former teammate out for praise, saying ``when I got to the big leagues, there was a man--Eddie Murray--who showed me how to play this game, day in and day out. I thank him for his example and for his friendship. I was lucky to have him as my teammate for the years we were together . . .'' Murray also gave to his community, starting, with Ripken, a program giving Orioles tickets to underprivileged children. He also created an outdoor education program in the second largest urban park in the nation, Leakin Park in Baltimore, named The Carrie Murray Nature Center in honor of his late mother.

Of sharing his achievement with Aaron and Mays, Murray said, ``I'm not in their class.'' Mr. Murray, your fans in Baltimore and across the Country beg to disagree.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to bring to this body's attention that this weekend in Cooperstown, Cooperstown, New York, one of the greatest baseball players of all time will be inducted into the Hall of Fame, and that is Eddie Murray who played for the Baltimore Orioles. He played for other teams, but he is known as a Baltimore Oriole.

Eddie Murray is one of only three players, the other two, Hank Aaron and Willie Mays, who hit over his lifetime 500 home runs in 3,000 hits. But what we all know about Eddie Murray, he is a model of consistency, a real team player, a person who really brought championship to Baltimore, and championship to the baseball diamond.

He also gave back to the community. Particularly, I want to bring to this body's attention the Carrie Murray Nature Center that he founded in Baltimore, in honor of his mother, in Lincoln Park. He is known not only as a great baseball player, but a great person. I congratulate him on being selected for the Hall of Fame.

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

Mr. Chairman, I take this time to point out a provision that is in the bill

that provides $100 million of aid to Serbia. That aid is conditioned upon certain standards being met that the Yugoslav government is cooperating with the International Criminal Tribunal, including access for investigators in the surrender and transfer of indictees or the assistance in their apprehension.

I want to thank the chairman and the ranking member of the subcommittee for their help in including this language again in this year's appropriation bill.

Mr. Chairman, I want to point out that the Committee on Appropriations has worked with our Helsinki Commission to make sure this language is included again this year in the appropriation process. It reinforces our commitment to the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia. This body has played a very important role in moving forward the work of the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia. I want to point out to my colleagues that the conditional language that has been included in this appropriation bill yearly has been very helpful to the prosecutor in getting cooperation from the Government of Serbia. We have seen reform within their government, and we are all very pleased to see the reforms that are taking place. But there is still a lot of work that needs to be done.

Let me just point out that there are still 18 indictees that are at large, including Bosnian Serb leader Karadzic and Army Commander General Mladic. So we still have work to be done with the International Criminal Tribunal. This language is very important. I want to thank the Committee on Appropriations and its leadership for continuing to include this conditionality. It speaks to the priority of this body. I am very pleased it is included in the bill. I certainly support it.