Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, let me, if I might, first correct, I think, a couple of the factual issues.

I can assure you that the Democratic Members wanted to participate in the debate on the pension legislation. In fact, when the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Portman) was debating the issue, we were confronting the Capitol Police, and that was the reason why we are not back in the room. By the time we finished with the Capitol Police, the markup was over.

Let me also point out that the police were called before the gentleman from California's (Mr. Stark) episode began. We were confronted with the Capitol Police before the unanimous consent request was brought forward.

Mr. Speaker, I started this day looking forward to the committee markup on H.R. 1776. That is a bill that I have worked on with the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Portman) for many months. We have worked with the chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means. We

have worked with Members on both sides of the aisle on that legislation. It is important legislation to working people of this country, and there are different views among Democrats on provisions in that legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I could defend that bill on its merit, and I look forward to doing just that, but I cannot defend the manner in which our committee acted this morning.

I have devoted much of my public career to process issues. I have served on the ethics committee for over 6 years, and I have served as a cochair of our ethics task force. I am a former speaker of the Maryland legislature. Process is important in what happened in the Committee on Ways and Means this morning. Mistakes were made, and it reflects badly on each one of us. We need to move forward, but to move forward we must acknowledge our mistakes.

H.R. 1776 desperately needs to be considered in a fair manner before the Committee on Ways and Means for its integrity and integrity of the process.

It is the committee's responsibility to guarantee to the public that a fair process is used, order is maintained, and each Member's right is protected. That is our collective responsibility.

Mr. Speaker, since this morning I have talked to Members on both sides of the aisle, and I am pleased that the Speaker's on the floor listening to this debate. I think it is absolutely essential, and I know I am supported by both Democrats and Republicans, that H.R. 1776 be returned to the Committee on Ways and Means for a full markup, with opportunity of all Members to participate. As one of the principal sponsors, I hope that will be accomplished and we will be able to have a full markup on that legislation.

Mr. Chairman, this funding bill shortchanges an important program designed to prevent child abuse, reunify families, and promote the adoption of certain children in the foster care system. Under this legislation, the Promoting Safe and Stable Families program would receive only half its discretionary allocation. This inadequate funding level stands in stark contrast to President Bush's budget, which proposes full funding for the program. The bill also ignores a bipartisan plea from the Chairman and Ranking Member of the authorizing subcommittee to fully fund this important program.

The Promoting Safe and Stable Families Program (Title IV-B, Subpart 2 of the Social Security Act) provides grants to states for four kinds of child welfare services: family preservation, family support, time- limited family reunification, and adoption promotion and support. The program represents the most significant effort by the Federal government to support services that may prevent child abuse and neglect from occurring, and that help children move quickly from foster care to permanent homes. With over half a million children currently in foster care, and nearly one million cases of child abuse or neglect substantiated every year, funding for this program is vitally important.

If we really care about helping and protecting our most vulnerable children, then we should be willing to make at least a modest investment to achieve that goal. Congress has approved nearly $3 trillion in tax cuts for mainly wealthy Americans in less than three years. Surely, we can spend a tiny, nearly imperceptible fraction of that amount on preventing child abuse and on helping struggling families. As this debate moves forward, I hope we can

make progress on a goal President Bush laid out not only in his budget, but also in his 2000 campaign for the Presidency. Let's fully fund the Promoting Safe and Stable Families Program.

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

Mr. Chairman, I had intended to offer an amendment that would have restated the policy of our country against the use of torture. The reason that I was going to offer that amendment is that I do represent this body in the Commission on Security and Cooperation in Europe; and in many of our meetings, the issue of the use of torture has been raised, particularly in light of our war against terrorism. I might tell you there have also been press accounts recently that call into question the use of torture in regards to the campaign against terrorism.

However, Mr. Chairman, I think the President of the United States, along with the representatives from the State Department and Defense Department, have made it very clear on the U.S. policy in this regard.

Let me just point out that on June 26, 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 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 exceptions.'' Finally, as the General Counsel to the Defense Department William Haynes wrote to Senator Leahy recently, ``The United States does not permit, tolerate, or condone any such torture by its employees under any circumstances.''

Mr. Chairman, I think the record is very clear on the U.S. position in regards to the use of torture, and, therefore, I will not pursue an amendment at this time. I thank my colleagues for their patience.

Mr. Speaker, I oppose the passage of this bill. The passage will make it much more difficult for Congress to enact a meaningful prescription drug benefit for our Nation's seniors. Let me give you five reasons why.

Reason number one. There is no guaranteed benefit in this bill. Unlike seeing a doctor or going to a hospital, we cannot tell our seniors that their prescription drugs will be covered. It will be different in different parts of the country. Mr. Speaker, I tried to correct that by offering an amendment in the Committee on Ways and Means, and it was rejected by the Republicans. I tried to give this body an opportunity to vote on it, but the Committee on Rules would not make that amendment in order.

Reason number two. We are set on a course to privatize Medicare. Only private insurance can participate in the prescription drug coverage. Private insurance only has to offer a 1-year commitment. Mr. Speaker, my citizens of Maryland remember when we had Medicare+Choice; 100,000 Marylanders lost their coverage when all eight HMOs left Maryland. It is irresponsible to claim that private insurance companies are eager to return to a market that they have abandoned in the past.

Reason number three. This bill will jeopardize coverage for seniors who have good private retiree prescription drug coverage today. CBO has estimated that 30 percent of our seniors who currently have their own private coverage for prescription drugs through their prior employment will lose those benefits as a result of the enactment of this legislation.

Reason number four. We are missing an opportunity to bring down drug prices. The legislation specifically prohibits our government from using the purchasing power of 40 million beneficiaries to lower drug prices just like the Canadians do.

Reason number five. The benefits are inadequate. The Republicans project that this bill will provide for a $35 a month premium, $250 deductible, then some help up to $2,000, but then our seniors are on their own for the next $2,900. Our seniors are expected to pay a $35-a- month premium when they are not entitled to any benefit for a good part of the year. I think that is unrealistic.

My Republican friends say, well, you only have $400 billion. We offered alternatives within $400 billion that would provide real benefits. I offered a substitute that said, look, if you cannot afford all drugs, let us at least cover drugs for those illnesses such as high blood pressure and coronary artery disease and diabetes and severe depression. But, no, the Committee on Rules would not allow this body to decide whether that would be a better package and a guaranteed benefit package.

Mr. Speaker, I cannot support a bill that provides no guaranteed benefit, relies solely on the whim of private insurance companies, causes harm to seniors who currently have adequate prescription drug coverage, will not do enough to bring down the cost of prescription drugs, and provides inadequate benefits. Therefore, I will vote ``no'' on the Republican bill.

Mr. Speaker, let me first thank the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos). There is no Member of this body who has done more in his lifetime to fight anti-Semitism than the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos), and I congratulate him for his effective leadership against anti-Semitism here and around the world.

I also want to thank the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith), who is the chairman of our OSCE delegation. I have the honor of being the ranking Democratic member. The gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings), who will be speaking shortly, is one of the commissioners. We have made the fight against anti-Semitism a top priority of our delegation. We have been effective in making it a top priority within the OSCE Parliamentary Assembly.

We have done that because we have seen a rise of anti-Semitism, physical assaults on individuals solely because they are Jewish, desecration of Jewish cultural sites, propaganda in the media have all been on the rise. We must have a zero tolerance policy about anti- Semitism.

The OSCE Helsinki Commission provides a unique opportunity for us to fight anti-Semitism. It not only has in its membership all of the countries of Europe, Canada and the United States, but it has the participation of our Mediterranean partners, which include Israel, Egypt and Jordan. The OSCE Helsinki Commission has had a history of effectively dealing with human rights issues, so that is why the United States leadership has been effective in bringing about the forums to deal with anti-Semitism. I know there was just a meeting in Vienna that the gentleman from New Jersey (Chairman Smith) and the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings) participated in. We adopted in the OSCE Parliamentary Assembly last year a very strong resolution against anti- Semitism as a result of the U.S. leadership, and we have signed a letter of intent with Germany to spell out specific actions that we need to take in order to fight anti-Semitism.

We can never justify anti-Semitic actions by international developments or political issues. We need to have an action plan to fight anti-Semitism. We need to have strong laws that are adopted by our member states and enforced. We need to speak out against anti- Semitism as parliamentarians. Silence is not an option. As all my colleagues have expressed, we need educational programs for our children. The resolution says we need to create educational efforts throughout the region encompassing the participating states of OSCE to counter anti-Semitic stereotypes and attitudes among younger people, increase Holocaust awareness programs, and help identify the necessary resources to accomplish this goal. Our children are our future. In many of these states, we are finding there are counterproductive programs promoting anti-Semitism.

We need a proactive agenda. This resolution puts this body on record in strong support of our resolution within OSCE to continue our commitment to support action plans to stamp out anti-Semitism. I urge my colleagues to support the resolution.

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to yield 2 minutes to the distinguished democratic whip, the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer).

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

Let me say to my friend we all, of course, offer our deepest condolences as we did to his family. I am afraid, though, that the bill without the Pomeroy substitute is going to offer no help whatsoever for a decade to people who may find themselves in this same position.

One of the principal advantages of the substitute is that not only does it provide immediate help starting in 2004, exempting those estates $3 million, $6 million on a couple, and by the way, those gross estates would not have to file forms. They do not even have to file an information form if their gross value is below $3 million. So I think we would provide immediate help to a significant number, to the overwhelming majority of people who would find themselves in the same position that my colleague's family found itself in.

But there is a second reason that I think family farms, which go through a similar situation, would benefit much more from the substitute than the underlying bill, and this is predictability. I dare say that if the bill that the Republicans are bringing forward were to pass, very few individuals who had estates of 3, 4, 5, 6, $7 million would change their estate plan based upon the predictability of Congress to keep this policy in effect for the next decade, so that the relief would eventually come.

Predictability is very important in estate planning. The Pomeroy substitute gives us that predictability, a policy that will stand, a policy that exempts 99.6 percent of the estates in our country today. Those individuals would be able to make estate changes in order to deal with the new realities of a law that makes sense.

There is a third reason in addition to the fact that we provide immediate relief and it is predictable. The third reason we have heard over and over again, and it is an important reason, and this is affordability, what we can afford as a Nation.

Next week we are going to be debating whether we can afford a prescription drug plan for our seniors. We make choices. We set priorities by what we think is important. The Joint Economic Committee on Taxation, not this Member but our objective professionals, tell us that this bill will lose, when fully implemented in the next decade, $850 billion. Our prescription drug plan that will be on the floor next week is $400 billion. Those of us who say can we not find a little bit more money for the millions of seniors who do not have health insurance, can we not throw a few more dollars in that program, we are told we do not have the money.

Yet we have the money for relief that affects only a few thousand estates in this country, and that is all it is. It is not the wholesale farm. It is the farms of a very few. In fact, they are wealthy farms that are going to be affected, estates of a very few, very wealthy people in this Nation that are impacted by maintaining an estate tax for the very, very wealthy individuals. And as my friend, the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), pointed out, the reason why the underlying bill will never become law and if it becomes law it will never be sustained is that Americans would not tolerate multibillionaires passing their estates tax free and their income not being taxed. It will not be sustained.

Vote for the underlying substitute. It will affect policy today. It will take care of the problems we have heard before.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is now my pleasure to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Emanuel).

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

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).

Mr. Speaker, could I inquire as to the amount of time that remains on both sides?

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the rightful sponsor of the substitute, the gentleman from North Dakota (Mr. Pomeroy), be allowed to control the remaining time on this side.

Mr. Speaker, let me thank the gentleman for yielding me this time, and I want to acknowledge the work that both the gentleman from New York (Mr. Houghton) and the gentleman from North Dakota (Mr. Pomeroy) have done to develop a process in which we could look at the Taxpayer Bill of Rights with our staffs in order to make reasonable changes to protect taxpayers and their relationship with the Internal Revenue Service.

The gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Portman) has been one of the leaders in the Congress of the United States on this issue, and I have worked with him on some of these matters, but the gentleman from North Dakota and the gentleman from New York, in their subcommittee of oversight, have really taken on, I think, the right process to review each of these provisions and to bring forward a group of noncontroversial changes in the Taxpayer Bill of Rights that are important to protect our constituents in their dealing with the Internal Revenue Service.

So, Mr. Speaker, I start by saying there is a lot of good provisions. Most of the provisions in the underlying bill are important provisions that we need to act on and that have gone through the vetting process, which I think is appropriate for these types of changes. My concern is the amendment that was added that was not part of the Taxpayer Bill of Rights. I think we will have a chance later in this debate to correct that through an amendment or substitute that will be offered by the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel) that will incorporate all the good provisions of the underlying bill, but eliminate the provision that affects TAA.

Let me talk for moment, if I might, about that one provision that I hope we will find a way to get out of the underlying legislation so that we can move forward with the Taxpayer Bill of Rights. That provision is a very controversial provision and a provision that I think does irreparable harm to a large number of our constituents who currently or may be without health insurance.

We provided in the trade adjustment assistance provision where we could deal with workers who have lost their health benefits and their jobs as a result of foreign trade. That could be a clear example of what has happened to the steel industry in my community, where so many Bethlehem Steel workers lost their health benefits as a result of the financial woes caused by illegally dumped steel here in the United States.

My concern with the TAA amendment that has been incorporated in the Taxpayer Bill of Rights is that it removes an important protection for these workers or retirees in getting health insurance that will cover them. In my own State of Maryland, we have taken advantage of the TAA law and the use of the Federal credit by establishing a State pool for these workers and retirees so they can get health benefits. By removing the protection that is in the law, we will be encouraging States to take away protections on preexisting conditions in underwriting.

Mr. Speaker, I think it should be the policy of this body to cover all these workers and retirees. We should not be distinguishing between those who, in their most desperate need, have preexisting conditions. The bill is working as passed by the Congress. It is working in Maryland, it is working around the Nation. There is no need now to remove the protections that were included in the TAA legislation.

So, Mr. Speaker, I will be urging my colleagues to support the substitute that will preserve the important provisions on the Taxpayer Bill of Rights but will remove this poison pill that could hurt many workers and retirees in communities' around the Nation.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time.

Mr. Speaker, working families that make between $10,000 and $26,000 a year were left out of the tax bill that was recently signed by the President. These are people who pay taxes, Mr. Speaker. They pay sales taxes, they pay property taxes, they pay excise taxes, they pay FICA taxes. In fact, many of them pay a greater percentage of their income in taxes than the wealthy people who got the benefits of the recently enacted tax bill.

To correct this oversight, it will cost a modest amount of money, about 1 percent of what it cost in the recent tax bill. We have a Senate bill that corrects this. It is fully paid for. It passed the other body by a vote of 94-to-2. It is supported by the President of the United States. Why are we not taking this bill up? But for the leadership in this House, the Republican leadership, we could have passed this bill tonight.

What this motion says, Mr. Speaker, is that we support the effort of the other body so that we could correct this bill now. This is a vote to help those working families. This is a vote to help the military families. This is a vote to say that we do not want to follow what the Republican leader has said, which is ``This ain't going to happen.'' We want it to happen, and our motion allows it to happen.

I urge my fellow Members to support the effort in the other body, support the President in saying that he would sign this legislation. This is our opportunity to do it.

Mr. Speaker, I just urge my colleagues not to hold low-wage worker families hostage to the notion that we have to do a lot more that is not going to happen in order for them to get the same type of tax relief that was provided to high-income families in the bill that was signed by the President.

This is the right thing for us to do. I urge my colleagues to support the motion to instruct.

Parliamentary Inquiry

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this 3-month extension of the funding for the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, or TANF, program. I also support the bill's continuation of funding for a series of programs designed to help people leave welfare for work, including child care assistance and transitional Medicaid coverage. Without this extension, funding for all these vitally important programs would expire at the end of this month.

While this bill is important, it is obviously only a stopgap measure, as the chairman has indicated. Unfortunately, this is the fourth short- term extension we have been forced to pass since last fall. Rather than continuously enacting these temporary measures, we should be sitting down to figure out how to craft a good 5-year reauthorization for the TANF program.

I appreciate my chairman's hope that this will be the last of our extensions. I can tell my chairman, the best way to make sure that this will be the last of these short-term extensions is for us to get together, Democrats and Republicans, with Members of the other body and the administration, and work out a true bipartisan compromise on a reauthorization that will help America's families.

But regrettably, the Republican leadership of this House has precluded such discussions by literally ramming through a TANF reauthorization without any hearings and without any opportunity this year for us to work our will, so once again we are stuck without a long-term commitment to many of our Nation's most important antipoverty programs.

My friends on the other side of the aisle may be tempted to blame the other body, but let me tell the Members, I think it has been our actions, not theirs, that have stalled the opportunity to enact a comprehensive 5-year reauthorization bill. President Bush did send to Congress a rigid, Washington-knows-best welfare plan that was criticized by Governors, mayors, welfare administrators, poverty experts, and religious leaders. It focused on make-work instead of real jobs for welfare recipients, and it replaced State flexibility with unfunded mandates.

Mr. Speaker, on Monday three dozen religious leaders sent a letter to President Bush echoing these concerns. Let me quote a little from that letter. These were religious leaders, some of whom helped the administration in crafting its policy.

``Poor people are suffering; and our faith-based service providers see it every day in communities across the country . . . We believe that the budget your administration has put forward fails to protect and promote the well-being of our poorest and most vulnerable citizens. The tax cut passed by Congress with your support provides virtually no help for those at the bottom of the economic ladder, while those at the top reap windfalls.''

The letter goes on to say:

``Pro-family commitments to invest in adequate child care, education, and training for our poorest families have fallen short in your administration's proposals. The most effective and bipartisan public policies for reducing poverty have not been adequately supported by your administration.''

This letter from religious leaders concludes by suggesting, ``many are feeling betrayed'' by the disconnect between the President's words and the actions on poverty-related issues.

Mr. Speaker, I include for the Record a copy of this letter.

The letter referred to is as follows:

Call to Renewal,

Washington, DC, June 9, 2003.

Dear Mr. President: We are all leaders in the faith

community, whose churches and faith-based organizations are

on the front lines of fighting poverty. Many of us have

supported your faith-based initiative from the beginning of

the administration. Several of us have met with you to

discuss the churches' role in overcoming poverty and have

offered solid support to our friends, John Dilulio and Jim

Towey, who have led your Office of Faith Based and Community

Initiatives. But while we have consistently backed faith-

based approaches to poverty reduction, we have also insisted

they must be accompanied by policies that really do assist

low-income families and children as they seek self-

sufficiency.

Mr. President, it is a critical time for poor people in

America. Poor people are suffering; and our faith-based

service providers see it every day in communities across the

country. The poor are suffering because of a weakening

economy. The poor are suffering because of resources being

diverted to war and homeland security. And the poor are

suffering because of lack of attention in national public

policy.

We are writing because of our deep moral concern about

consistency in your administration's support for effective

policies that help alleviate poverty. We believe a lack of

focus on the poor in the critical areas of budget priorities

and tax policy is creating a crisis for low-income people. We

believe the budget your administration has put forward fails

to protect and promote the well being of our poorest and most

vulnerable citizens. The tax cut just passed by the Congress

with your support provides virtually no help for those at the

bottom of the economic ladder, while those at the top reap

windfalls. The resulting spending cuts, at both federal and

state levels, in the critical areas of health care,

education, and social services, will fall heaviest on the

poor. Budgets are moral documents.

You have taken many positive steps with regard to

international aid and development, such as the HIV/AIDS

initiative, and we would like to see that compassion manifest

here at home. In significant social programs, like welfare

reform, we have supported the proposals of your

administration to strengthen marriage and family as effective

antipoverty measures; but the companion pro-family

commitments to invest in adequate child care, education, and

training for our poorest families have fallen short in your

administration's proposals. The most effective and bipartisan

public policies for reducing poverty have not been adequately

supported by your administration.

Over the past several years, we have advocated several

policy initiatives in addition to the ``faith-based

initiative'' that would help low-income people in this

country. These include TANF reauthorization that makes

poverty reduction a priority, targeted tax relief for low-

income families, and funding for proven programs that would

effectively reduce poverty. We believe administration support

for such policies would be consistent with your stated

commitment of being compassionate toward the poor, especially

since you have spoken more about issues of poverty than many

of your predecessors.

We recall your Notre Dame address two years ago, where you

pointed out: ``Government has an important role. It will

never be replaced by charities. . . . Yet, government must

also do more to take the side of charities and community

healers, and support their work. . . . Government must be

active enough to fund services for the poor--and humble

enough to let good people in local communities provide

those services.''

Mr. President, ``the good people'' who provide such

services are feeling overwhelmed by increasing need and

diminishing resources. And many are feeling betrayed. The

lack of a consistent, coherent, and integrated domestic

policy that benefits low-income people makes our continued

support for your faith-based initiative increasingly

untenable. Mr. President, the poor are suffering, and without

serious changes in the policies of your administration, they

will suffer even more.

When you announced the faith-based initiative, you pledged

that: ``I want to ensure that faith-based and community

groups will always have a place at the table in our

deliberations.'' Mr. President, it's time to bring faith-

based organizations to the table where policy decisions are

being made. We are concerned that the needs of poor people in

America seem to have little influence in the critical policy

decisions your administration is making. The faith-based-

initiative seems to be the only place in your administration

where poverty is prioritized, yet we know that faith-based

initiatives alone will never be sufficient to solve the

problems of poverty. As we have discussed with you the faith-

based initiative, we now want to engage your administration

in a serious conversation about domestic social policy. Mr.

President, it's time to talk.

Sincerely,

Rev, Jim Wallis, Convener and President, Call to Renewal.

David Beckmann, President, Bread for the World.

Rev. Peter Borgdorff, Executive Director of Ministries,

Christian Reformed Church.

Lt. Col. Paul Bollwahn, National Social Services Secretary,

The Salvation Army.

J. Daryl Byler, Director, Washington Office, Mennonite

Central Committee.

Bart Campolo, President, Mission Year.

Tony Campolo, President, Evangelical Association for

Promotion of Education.

Rt. Rev. John Bryson Chane, Bishop, Episcopal Diocese of

Washington, DC.

Rt. Rev. Steven Charleston, President and Dean, Episcopal

Divinity School.

Dave Donaldson, President, We Care America.

Rev. Dr. Robert Edgar, General Secretary, National Council

of Churches in the USA.

Dr. Robert M. Franklin, Presidential Distinguished

Professor, Candler School of Theology, Emory University.

Wayne Gordon, President, Christian Community Development

Association.

Rev. Wes Granberg-Michaelson, General Secretary, Reformed

Church in America.

Rev. Dr. Richard Hamm, General Minister & President,

Christian Church--Disciples of Christ in the US and Canada.

Rev. Mark Hanson, Presiding Bishop, Evangelical Lutheran

Church in America.

Bishop Thomas L. Hoyt, Jr., Presiding Bishop, Fourth

District, Christian Methodist Episcopal Church, President-

elect, National Council of Churches in the USA.

David G. Hunt, President, American Baptist Churches USA.

Hyepin Im, President, Korean Churches for Community

Development.

William ``Bud'' Ipema, Vice-President, Council of

Leadership Foundations.

Rev. Alvin Jackson, National City Christian Church,

Moderator, Christian Church-Disciples of Christ in the US and

Canada.

Rev. Ted Keating, SM, Executive Director, Conference of

Major Superiors of Men.

Rev. Cliffton Kirkpatrick, Stated Clerk, Presbyterian

Church USA.

Rt. Rev. Mark MacDonald, Bishop, Episcopal Diocese of

Alaska.

Bishop Felton Edwin May, Presiding Bishop, Baltimore-

Washington Conference, United Methodist Church.

Rev. Dr. A. Roy Medley, General Secretary, American Baptist

Churches USA.

Gordon Murphy, Executive Director, Christian Community

Development Association.

Rev. Glenn R. Palmberg, President, Evangelical Covenant

Church.

Bishop Donald A. Ott, Coordinator, United Methodist Council

of Bishops Initiative on Children and Poverty.

Carole Shinnick, SSND, Executive Director, Leadership

Conference of Women Religious.

Ron J. Sider, President, Evangelicals for Social Action.

Rev. John H. Thomas, General Minister and President, United

Church of Christ.

Joe Volk, Executive Secretary, Friends Committee on

National Legislation.

Jim Winkler, General Secretary, General Board of Church and

Society, United Methodist Church.

Mr. Speaker, let me also point out to my colleagues a book that was recently released by Elizabeth Sawhill as the editor called ``One Percent for Kids. I mention that because the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Mrs. Johnson) and I participated on a panel at Brookings on this particular subject.

I want to just emphasize one point that was pointed out in the beginning of this book. At the present time, our Nation is spending 2 percent of its gross domestic product on programs for children. We are spending 2\1/2\ percent of our gross domestic product on servicing the national debt.

My chairman mentioned the fact that the TANF reauthorization bill that passed this body would increase the potential for funding for the poverty programs in this country by $2 billion. I might point out that only $1 billion was assured. The second billion was authorization. We are increasing the national debt this year by $400 billion in order to give tax cuts basically to wealthy people. To service that additional debt, it will cost somewhere between $12 billion and $14 billion in next year's budget alone.

So, yes, we are very generous on the tax cuts and on saddling taxpayers with interest on the national debt. But when it comes to America's future, when it comes to investing in our children for their future, we seem to have a deaf ear. One percent for kids could really help stimulate our economy and grow our economy.

Mr. Speaker, let me make it clear, speaking for my colleagues on this side of the aisle, we are ready today to sit down with our colleagues on the Republican side to work out a TANF reauthorization 5-year bill that will provide predictability, flexibility, and resources to our States to continue the job that they started 6 years ago when we reformed the welfare system in a bipartisan way. Let us continue that effort. Let us make the tools available. Let us not just try to ram through a bill that the experts tell us will not be in the best interests of our children.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin), a distinguished member of the Committee on Ways and Means who is a very active member of the Subcommittee on Human Resources.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, first, let me just comment briefly on my friend's, the gentleman from Pennsylvania's (Mr. English), revisionist history.

The original welfare reform bill was signed by President Clinton. He held out his final support because it was moving through Congress without the child care provisions that my friend from Pennsylvania is now taking credit for or the health provisions.

Let me also point out, if I might, Mr. Speaker, that a lot has happened in the last year. We have had no hearings on this legislation in this Congress. Yet we have extended unemployment insurance. We have seen a deterioration in our economy. We have seen our States strapped with some of the highest budget deficits in their history. And yet on the most important anti-poverty program in our Nation, we have not had one hearing or one opportunity to deal with the bill on this reauthorization act. That is not bipartisanship, and that is not an open process.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).

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

Mr. Speaker, let me just in response to our friend from California, point out if the gentleman has so much confidence in current law in the results that have just been spelled out, I am

curious as to why the bill that passed the House that is now being promoted, why over 40 of our welfare administrators in our various States have said it will cause a fundamental change in their welfare system, it would cause them to shift their local priorities to federally mandated priorities where our own scorekeepers have indicated that there are additional mandates to the States far beyond the dollars made available, far beyond the $2 billion, if in fact $2 billion is made available, our States would be required to conform to new mandates. If we believe that the current law has been so successful, why are we now taking away the ability of States to set their own priorities?

Mr. Speaker, I am going to ask my colleagues to do two things. First, I ask my colleagues to support the 3-month extension. It is the responsible thing to do. We need to approve this legislation.

Second, I am going to ask, let us all step back for a moment and take a deep breath and take a look at the issues and the families that are affected, listen to our Governors who have the principal responsibility, analyze the GAO report which indicates that most of our States have had to cut back on child care money because of their fiscal problems.

In my own State of Maryland, they are taking no new enrollments in child care unless you are on welfare. Think of this message: If you want safe, affordable child care, go on welfare. That is the wrong message. Let us talk together, let us listen to each other and let us come up with a bipartisan bill that we can be proud of, that can pass both this body and the other body and be signed by the President; and, most importantly, will help our States in their efforts not only to get people out of welfare, but to get American families out of poverty.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, if the House does not act today or tomorrow, 80,000 Americans will be denied extended unemployment benefits on June 1. Every week thereafter, another 80,000 laid-off workers will be denied benefits, totaling $2 million over the next 6 months. This is in addition to the one million unemployed workers who have already exhausted their extended benefits.

Last week, Democrats tried three times to get a vote on extending unemployment benefits, but each time the Republicans said no. We are now in the longest period of negative job growth since the Great Depression. The unemployed are looking for work, but they cannot find jobs. They need and deserve extension of unemployment benefits.

Mr. Speaker, I would hope that you would entertain a request to immediately consider legislation introduced by the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel) and myself, H.R. 1652, to extend unemployment benefits for millions of Americans who have lost their jobs, not just those who have exhausted their State benefits. This request would simply ensure that the unemployed at least get a vote on the floor before we adjourn. We have the money in the Federal Unemployment Trust Fund to pay for these benefits. That is the least we can do.

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

Mr. Speaker, I have had a lot of town hall meetings in my district; and I will tell my colleagues what my constituents do not like. That is, they do not like us to charge and spend; and that is exactly what this conference report is going to do. It is going to borrow money in order to give tax breaks.

That does not make a lot of sense. By the Republicans' own number, their budget is going to go from a $6 trillion national debt to $12 trillion, doubling the national debt. Every dollar of tax relief has to be borrowed in which we are paying interest. That does not make sense.

Mr. Speaker, this is a reckless bill. They advertise they give help to low-income people. That is for 1 year only. They give permanent relief to the well-to-do. That is not fair. That is not what we should be doing as a Nation.

This bill is reckless. This bill is not affordable. This bill is going to hurt our economy, not help our economy.

What we should be doing is responsibly managing our resources. We should not be borrowing money to give a tax cut. That is wrong.

Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

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

Mr. Speaker, last week Democrats tried to get a vote on extending unemployment benefits three times on the floor of this House. Each time the Republican majority said no. So we are happy that the Republican leadership has finally agreed to consider this very important issue. However, we are concerned that the bill being brought to the floor today will exclude more than 1 million unemployed workers.

The legislation filed with the Committee on Rules last night extends unemployment benefits only for those exhausting their regular unemployment compensation. It does nothing for those who have exhausted their Federal unemployment, 13 weeks.

This is certainly an important step in the right direction. However, the Republican bill does not provide any assistance for those workers who have already run out of their 13 weeks of extended benefits. More than 1 million Americans now fall into this category.

Given that we are in the longest period of negative job growth since the Great Depression, I cannot understand why we would want to deny unemployment benefits to Americans suffering from long-term unemployment.

As my friend from North Dakota pointed out, for every person who is unemployed, there are three people looking for a job, for every job available. These individuals are looking for jobs that simply cannot be found.

We recently had a report that came back that showed there are 70 percent more workers who have exhausted their Federal benefits during this recession than during the 1990s; yet in the 1990s we extended the number of weeks beyond what we are extending in this legislation.

Without unemployment compensation, how are these families going to pay their rent or mortgage? Last month, Mr. Speaker, one of these long- term unemployed workers came and testified before the Committee on Ways and Means. His name was Joe Bergmann. Over the last year and a half, Joe has sent out 2,000 resumes, searched 32 job sites on the Internet, and has taken extra training classes; but he still is unable to find a job. Joe has worked his entire adult life, but is now having a hard time in an economy that has lost 2.7 million jobs.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to reject the previous question so that we can extend unemployment benefits for every worker that has lost their job during this very difficult economy. It is the right thing to do, to extend the benefits to all who need the help.

We have the money in the Federal unemployment trust funds; $21 billion is in those funds. It will adequately cover not only the extension of the 13 weeks, but the extra benefits for those who have exhausted their Federal unemployment compensation benefits.

We have the money. By defeating the previous question, we can have the right legislative solution. We can do it before we adjourn.

I urge my colleagues to reject the previous question.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to control the time of the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel).

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

Mr. Speaker, let me assure the House that on the Democratic side of the aisle, we are pleased that we have legislation before us that extends the Federal unemployment compensation for an additional 7 months. We think that is the right way to move. However, we are extremely disappointed that the legislation does not include any additional help for those who have already exhausted their unemployment insurance benefits.

We are very disappointed that over a million people who currently are unemployed, who cannot find employment, will not be able to get any benefits under this legislation. Few States will be able to go beyond the 13 weeks of additional Federal unemployment insurance benefits because of the trigger mechanism. We believe that the legislation before us should include 26 weeks of unemployment insurance benefits for all those workers who exhaust their State unemployment insurance funds.

Let me point out that in prior recessions we have done exactly that. The gentlewoman from Washington (Ms. Dunn) points out what we have done, but it falls far short of what we did in the recession in the early 1990s. Despite the fact that this recession is much deeper than the prior recession, we have lost 2.7 million jobs, twice as many jobs as in the early 1990s, and 70 percent more people have exhausted their unemployment insurance benefits in this recession than in the recession in the early 1990s. In the early 1990s, we extended benefits for 27 months. Yet in

this recession, we have only extended benefits for 15 months. In the prior recession, we extended Federal unemployment benefits initially for 26 weeks, then reduced it to 20 weeks; yet the legislation before us maintains only 13 weeks of benefits for those who are unemployed.

We have accumulated $21 billion in the Federal unemployment trust funds just for this purpose. The legislation before us is scored at about $6.5 billion. If we would extend the benefits to all of those who have exhausted benefits and provide 26 weeks of Federal unemployment insurance, it would cost perhaps another $3.5 billion, so $10 billion, about half the money that is in the fund exactly for this purpose.

Lastly, let me point out that providing unemployment insurance benefits for those who are unemployed and cannot find employment through no fault of their own would be the best way to stimulate our economy. A little later this evening we will be talking about a tax bill, supposedly to create jobs. If we really want to help our economy, let us give the money to those people who have to spend it because they have no other source of income.

The rule before us denies the opportunity of Members to offer amendments. That is regrettable. We should have had that opportunity. Speaking for my side of the aisle, the Democrats will use every opportunity we can to try to correct this legislation to deal with the 1 million people who are being left out by the underlying bill.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I would point out to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. English) that under the bill, 78,000 people from Pennsylvania will be denied any additional benefits.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews).

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

Mr. Speaker, let me just point out to my friend from Illinois that 53,000 of his constituents will

not be able to get benefits because of being excluded from this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Davis).

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Ohio (Mrs. Jones), a distinguished member of the Committee on Ways and Means.

(Mrs. JONES of Ohio asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, let me point out to my friend from New Jersey that 51,000 people in his State are not going to get benefits because of leaving out the extra weeks.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. McDermott), a distinguished member of the Committee on Ways and Means.

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

Let me just point out to my friend from Oregon that the Bush Administration has the worst job record of any administration since World War II, losing 69,000 jobs, whereas the Clinton Administration has the best, creating over half a million jobs.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), Democratic whip.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Neal), a member of the Committee on Ways and Means.

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

Mr. Speaker, let me tell my friend from California that if he checks with the Department of Labor he will find that 150,000 people in his State are not going to be covered under this bill who are unemployed.

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Woolsey).

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

Mr. Speaker, let me say to my friend from Connecticut that the suggestion we are making to cover those who are unemployed costs less than 1 percent of the tax bill we are taking up later.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Green).

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Maine (Mr. Michaud).

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Corrine Brown).

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

Mr. Speaker, we would give the gentleman a chance to help the 103,000 people who are currently not covered by the bill in New York.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Emanuel).

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

Mr. Speaker, as I said at the beginning of this debate, we welcome the opportunity of having an unemployment compensation bill on the floor. It is important that we enact legislation tonight that will help those people who are unemployed.

I can assure Members the Democrats want to join in that effort. We will offer an opportunity under the Rules so we can extend those benefits to all the people that are being trapped that are entitled to unemployment through their employment paying into the fund, so we do not leave 1 million people behind.

We would urge Members to support our motion, which will allow the 7- month extension for those who have exhausted the State benefits and also include those who have exhausted their 13 weeks.

Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to recommit.

Yes, in its present form, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, as I have indicated during the debate on the bill, the bill before us does extend unemployment insurance benefits for 7 months. I agree with the gentlewoman from Washington (Ms. Dunn) that a 7-month extension of the unemployment insurance benefits at this time is the appropriate length of time for us to extend unemployment insurance benefits.

We hope that during this period of time our economy will rebound; and if not, then we will have to revisit it again, but the length of time is the right period, and we have no objection to that.

Our objection is that we are not covering all the people who need to be helped. As I pointed out, in the recession in the 1990s when the loss of employment was less severe than the loss of employment in this recession, with the number of people who exhausted their Federal unemployment insurance benefits was less than under the current recession, we extended benefits for 26 weeks. We have the money in the unemployment insurance trust fund in order to do this. We have the money in the account, $21 billion. This will add a little over $3 billion.

Mr. Speaker, the distinguished chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means just filed the conference report on the Growth Tax Bill that I assume we will be taking up later this evening. That conference report will incur $350 billion of additional outlays. The amendment I have before you is less than 1 percent, less than 1 percent of the conference report on the tax bill. It affects 1 million people; 1 million people are affected by this motion. The adoption of this motion to recommit will not delay this bill 1 minute. We will still vote on it and pass it tonight. It is our opportunity to speak to what is the right policy, the right policy for those people who are unemployed; the right policy for what we have done in previous recessions; the right policy to help our economy, because we know these people need the money and will spend the money.

It is the right policy. I urge my colleagues to take advantage of this opportunity so that we cannot only take care of the 2 million people who are estimated to exhaust their State unemployment insurance benefits during the next 6 to 7 months, but we can help the 1 million people who are looking for jobs and cannot find jobs.

We have heard from these people in our communities. For every three people that are seeking a job, there is only one job available in the community, through no fault of their own. The least we can do is try to help them, and we can tonight by your vote on this motion to recommit. I urge my colleagues to support the motion.

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, this rule brings to the floor a bill to reauthorize the National Transportation Safety Board, which is perfectly fine, but I must tell my colleagues that it is in no danger. It is funded through the end of this fiscal year, so there is no rush to reauthorize this program. On the other hand, unemployment insurance will expire at the end of this month. We only have 6 legislative days left before millions of Americans will no longer qualify for Federal unemployment insurance benefits. For that reason I urge my colleagues to reject the previous question so that we can bring up today the extension of Federal unemployment insurance.

Mr. Speaker, extended benefits for unemployed workers have been less generous during this economic downturn compared to the last recession. Republicans have been very reluctant to extend unemployment insurance benefits to unemployed workers. During the last recession, in the 1990s, Congress kept an extended benefit program in place for 27 months and generally guaranteed benefits for 20 to 26 weeks. Today's program is scheduled to expire after only 15 months and providing only 13 weeks of benefits.

The economy has lost twice as many private sector jobs as we lost in the 1990s, with 2.7 million private sector jobs having been lost in the last 2 years. That is a 2.3 percent decline in private employment. In the 1990s, we lost 1.5 percent. There are now 3.4 people unemployed for every job opening in this Nation, and there is no sign of recovery. The U.S. economy has lost more than 500,000 jobs in the last 3 months alone. The current downturn represents the longest period in negative job growth since the Great Depression.

The funds are there for the extension of Federal unemployment insurance benefits, with $21 billion in the Federal Unemployment Trust Accounts, funds expressly for this purpose, to deal with a recession. And there is no better immediate stimulus to the economy to create economic activity than to extend unemployment insurance benefits. For every dollar we expend in Federal unemployment insurance benefits, the Department of Labor indicates we will generate $2.15 in additional economic activities in each of our communities.

So for all of these reasons, Mr. Speaker, the urgency is to bring up the unemployment insurance extension bill. That is what we should be doing today. We have a chance to do it. I urge my colleagues to vote against the previous question so that the Federal unemployment insurance benefits can be extended.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. Chairman, if I might, let me raise three points as to why this amendment should be made in order.

The first, the bill deals with transportation safety. Over 70,000 people in the aviation industry alone have lost their jobs in the last 2 years. They are covered by the underlying amendment, and there are many more in the transportation industries that have lost their jobs; and without the unemployment insurance benefits that are provided for with the amendment that I have offered, it will jeopardize safety here in our country.

Secondly, Mr. Chairman, if I might, during the consideration of the rule, I know the Chair may not have been on the floor, so I want to make sure I quote this accurately. During the consideration of the rule on the floor, the floor manager on behalf of the majority stated very clearly that the rule allowed any amendment by any Member. Mr. Chairman, this is an amendment, and I am a Member.

Mr. Chairman, let me point out the third reason. We have shown resourcefulness in this body as the people's House, the body that is closest to the people, to let democratic procedures go forward to determine urgent issues. The underlying amendment deals with the extension of Federal unemployment insurance benefits that are due to expire at the end of this month.

This House, as I said before I was interrupted, this body has shown resourcefulness in the rulings of the Chair, resourcefulness within the actions of our Members to deal with legislation in a timely way when there is an urgent issue. We are the people's House.

As I pointed out, 1 million people have lost their unemployment insurance. They have exhausted it. Two million people will exhaust their State unemployment insurance benefits within the next 6 months. This underlying bill simply extends the Federal unemployment insurance benefit program for 6 months. It allows for those who have exhausted benefits to be able to receive their benefits, another million people, and makes it easier for us to deal with those who are seeking part-time employment.

I would urge the Chair to exercise the discretion of the Chair, with only 6 days remaining before the expiration of this program, to permit this amendment to be in order, considering the statements of the floor managers, considering so many people that are in the transportation industry that are affected by being unemployed.

Mr. Chairman, I respectively move to appeal the ruling of the Chair.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Speaker, let me thank my friend for his generosity considering I am on the other side of the issue on this rule. I very much appreciate him yielding me time.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this rule. The rule does deny any amendments. There are amendments that need to be considered by this body if we are going to protect workers.

It is interesting, Mr. Speaker, that this bill comes to us as the workers' protection legislation, yet it does not afford adequate protection to our workers. But what concerns me the most, Mr. Speaker, is over the last 2 years our economy has lost 2.7 million private sector jobs. This is twice the amount of job loss as compared to the last recession, and yet we provide only one half of the amount of extended unemployment benefits to dislocated workers and their families.

It is for that reason, Mr. Speaker, that at the end of our debate we will be asking the House to reject the previous question so that we can offer an amendment that will provide for the extension of Federal unemployment insurance benefits.

This is urgent. The current Federal unemployment insurance benefit program is scheduled to terminate at the end of this month. Even though we know that one million workers, one million workers have already exhausted their Federal unemployment insurance benefits, the legislation that we have filed would give them an additional 13 weeks.

Mr. Speaker, we know that in the next 6 months 2 million workers will exhaust their State unemployment insurance benefits. Now, the legislation that we have currently extended will only provide unemployment insurance benefits for those who are on the program. No new enrollees. Two million Americans will be affected during the next 6 months. We had $21 billion in the Federal unemployment insurance funds to pay for those benefits, so it is paid for.

The Committee on Rules allowed for provisions within the jurisdiction of the Committee on Ways and Means in the underlying legislation that we will be considering if this rule is approved, yet the legislation was not considered by the Committee on Ways and Means. So, therefore, Mr. Speaker, I think it is very appropriate that this body permit us to consider during the debate of this legislation, which is aimed at protecting workers, the extension of Federal unemployment insurance benefits. It is going to be one of the last opportunities that we will have to consider this before the Federal unemployment insurance benefit program has exhausted and those that are unemployed are going to be without.

So, Mr. Speaker, I would urge my colleagues to defeat the previous question and, if necessary, defeat the rule so that we have an opportunity to take up the extension of the Federal unemployment insurance benefits that affect millions of our workers.

Mr. Speaker, let me try to explain the problem with the advice sections of the bill that is on the floor.

What my colleagues have done in this legislation is remove the prohibited transaction on giving advice by the agent that is selling the product to the employee. What does that mean? That means an employer can hire an investment company that will be responsible for the investment options that the participant must participate in, and the actual person giving the advice to the participant makes a commission based upon what product that individual sells.

Under current law, that is a prohibited transaction and is not allowed. Under the legislation that has been reported to the floor, that is now permitted without any protection basically in the bill at all.

I regret that I cannot support this legislation. Let me just take my colleagues back to the last Congress where I thought we tried to work in a bipartisan way to deal with the problems of Enron and WorldCom, and we made some progress, but then somehow when the legislation got reported to the floor, all that cooperation, all that bipartisan working together was lost when the Committee on Rules reported out a bill that contained many provisions that were never agreed upon in trying to resolve the issues before us.

We are now faced with legislation that opens up a huge loophole that could magnify the problems we had in Enron and WorldCom by giving congressional sanction to individuals who are more interested in getting a commission from the participant in the plan than giving sound advice as to what will work with that individual's need. Do we need to pass legislation? Absolutely. But this is not the right bill.

Fortunately, there will be a Democratic substitute, Mr. Speaker, that will address the legitimate concerns that are out there, and I regret that we have not been able to work together to develop the type of legislation that is needed to deal with the Enron-type scandals. We should have done that. We should have worked together, but for reasons unknown to me, the majority has decided to go this route, which I think could very well cause more harm than benefit to the beneficiaries.

I urge my colleagues to support the Democratic substitute and, if that is not accepted, to reject the underlying bill.