Floor Statements

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

Make no mistake about it, this bill is extreme and reckless. Mr. Speaker, $550 billion-plus, every dollar must be borrowed. The Republican budget, by its own numbers, doubles the national debt from $6 trillion to $12 trillion over the next 10 years. Two-thirds of the relief on the capital gains and on the dividend exclusion goes to those people who have incomes over $200,000. Yet, not one dime for the unemployed.

Yes, we have an urgent need. We have an urgent need to act to extend unemployment insurance benefits that expire at the end of this month. That is immediate, fiscally responsible. We have the money in our trust account, and it will help create jobs. Two million Americans in the next 6 months will exhaust their State unemployment insurance benefits and will get no relief.

This bill is extreme, it is reckless, and it is wrong.

Mr. Speaker, this week in the Committee on Ways and Means we attempted to offer this amendment to extend unemployment insurance benefits for those people who are going to lose their benefits at the end of this month.

That bill will spend $550 billion but does not provide one penny for those people who are going to lose their unemployment insurance benefits at the end of this month. Every prior recession we have extended Federal unemployment benefits for far longer than we have in this recession even though this recession is deeper than the prior recessions.

Mr. Speaker, in the next 6 months if we do not extend Federal unemployment insurance, 2 million of our fellow citizens are going to exhaust their State benefits. We have already seen 1 million of our citizens exhaust their extended benefits. What this motion simply does is we should be extending Federal unemployment insurance by 26 weeks and for those who have exhausted their benefits under the Federal system, an additional 13 weeks.

Mr. Speaker, the money is in the Federal unemployment trust account to pay for this; $21 billion is there. The money is there just for that reason, for

a recession. We should do it. For those who are interested in helping stimulate the economy, the study by the Department of Labor found that every dollar of unemployment benefits generated $2.15 of economic activity. It is the right policy to do. It will help our economy. We have done it in the past on a bipartisan basis. We are going to use every opportunity we can. We have to do this before the end of this month.

I urge my colleagues to support the motion to recommit so that we can move forward to help the unemployed in our community.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I must admit I am somewhat baffled by the comments of my distinguished chairman. If it is in the interest of this body to enact legislation quickly, then we should just take the Senate bill and ratify the Senate bill and send it to the President, and we can get it signed. It seems to me that is the easiest way for us to work this out for our military.

I yield to the gentleman from California.

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman's comments, but the differences here in substance between what we will be voting on and what the other body has voted on is that the Senate provided unlimited exclusions for death benefits payable to our military, and the legislation before us is less generous.

The House bill provides less generous eligibility rules for capital gains relief, and the Senate bill provided unlimited deductions for travel expenses of our National Guard members and Reservists, yet the legislation before us imposes a $1,500 cap on those deductions.

I do not know the logic of us limiting the reasonable expenses of our National Guard members, particularly when they have been called upon in this most recent conflict. It seems to me that those changes in every case work against our military, and I am surprised that we are not ratifying the Senate's bill.

But the most important difference is that the Senate included a provision to stop tax avoidance by those who have renounced their citizenship in this country, and the legislation before us today does not include that provision. I would suggest that is probably the major reason why we are acting on yet another version of this bill, which is extremely important for us to pass.

I agree with the chairman on that point, but it seems to me that we are now faced with the option of providing less benefits than we should to our military and losing an opportunity to close a major loophole in our Tax Code for those who renounce their citizenship, still taking advantage of U.S. tax law.

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

Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Speaker, I do not think that it is ever extraneous to try to offset the cost of the bill, and that is the reason this provision was put in, so we do not add to the deficit.

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

Let me first point out to my distinguished chairman that business people have no limit in the Tax Code as to what they can take on their travel expenses, and yet we are telling our National Guard that there is going to be a limit as to how much they can take on their taxes for travel expenses.

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. McDermott), a distinguished member of our committee.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the contributions of Timothy T. Williams, a resident of my district who has worked tirelessly for Baltimore's homeless citizens.

For the past 12 years, Mr. Williams has demonstrated outstanding service as Executive Director of the South Baltimore Homeless Shelter, where he led the development of a therapeutic community for homeless men with substance abuse problems, and skillfully managed comprehensive emergency services for homeless women and children. He has designed a community recovery model, through which graduates of the South Baltimore transitional shelter services provide counseling to homeless residents at South Baltimore Station and affiliated agencies, such as Carrington House.

Mr. Williams will now expand his work in the continuum of care for Baltimore's homeless and addicted by joining Jobs, Housing and Recovery, Inc., where he will develop supportive housing facilities and vocational services as the next step to recovery for Baltimore residents transitioning out of homelessness.

Mr. Williams received a bachelor's degree from Wheeling Jesuit University and a Juris Doctor from the University of Baltimore School of Law. Mr. Williams also served as a VISTA' volunteer in Texas, where he provided legal aid services to the rural poor.

I commend and thank Timothy Williams for his outstanding contributions to Baltimore and its citizens, and I wish him continued success in all future endeavors.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 1463. The House should be considering a bill today that responds to two basic questions: how do we encourage first responders--nurses, emergency room doctors, police, and firefighters--to volunteer for smallpox vaccinations; and second, how do we compensate them for any injury, disability or fatality they suffer in the event of an adverse reaction. Instead, the bill we are voting on--with no opportunity to amend or offer a substitute--accomplishes neither.

Last week, a 57-year-old nurse from my own state of Maryland died within 5 days of receiving the smallpox vaccine. The CDC is still investigating the nexus between the vaccine and her death. But to date, 12 health care workers who received the vaccine have experienced severe heart problems within day of inoculation, and 3 have died. These deaths and complications are sending waves of panic through the health care community.

On January 24, the President and HHS Secretary Thompson called for 450,000 first responders to be inoculated against smallpox. Today, as we come to the floor to consider this bill, the Administration has reached only 5 percent of its goal. The response has been dismal not because these workers lack dedication to public health and safety, but because they have justifiable doubts that this vaccine is safe and that if they are injured or die, they and their survivors will be compensated fairly.

Initial risk assessments by HHS did not come close to estimating the percentage of workers who would be at risk of illness or death from the smallpox vaccine. Many individuals are well on their way to heart disease, even though they have no symptoms and feel fine. Many Americans who have high blood pressure and diabetes are completely unaware of their condition.

Both high blood pressure and diabetes increase the risk for heart disease. Unfortunately, these serious problems usually don't cause symptoms until they've already done their damage. They silently harm many organs, including the heart and kidneys. Often people are not diagnosed with these problems until it is too late to prevent damage. By the time symptoms are present, the condition may be critical.

Scientific studies have indicated that for every 100,000 who are immunized against smallpox, 2 or 3 will die. But the U.S. has only immunized 29,000 persons so far, and three deaths have already occurred. Why the decrepancy? HHS's initial risk assessments were based on immunization of much younger subjects, who are at far lower risk of heart disease. But the three workers who died were all in their fifties, and the average age of nurses in our workforce is 45. Those who would be immunized under the president's plan are at much higher peril of adverse reactions.

The CDC had already announced a temporary medical deferral for persons diagnosed with heart disease, and late last week it expanded that category to include individuals with three of more ``major risk factors'' for heart disease, including smoking, diabetes, high blood pressure and high cholesterol. Small wonder that the participation rate among our health care workers is so low. It is likely to remain low until workers gain confidence that government has a better understanding of risk factors.

Our nation's first responders should be protected against smallpox. But a vaccination program can only succeed to the extent that government succeeds in assuring workers that potential side effects will be minimized, and that they will be treated fairly and compensated adequately in the event of illness, disability, or death.

The underlying bill fails these tests. It limits payments for lost income to any annual maximum of $50,000. There is no wage replacement for those who suffer permanently disability or death. Why would nurses, who earn an average salary of $40,000, risk their families' future for so little?

The Burr bill won't begin replacing lost wages until 5 days have passed. A national program ought to provide first dollar compensation, not last-resort coverage. The Burr bill also imposes a deadline of 180 days for workers to qualify for compensation. Those vaccinated after that time would not qualify. How can we know how long it take our States and localities to vaccinate a sufficient number of volunteers?

In addition, the bill provides no funding for education, screening, or surveillance. The National Association of County and City Health Officials has estimated that to provide pre-vaccination education and screening, and surveillance for adverse reactions would cost between $154 and $284 per person. If the Administration plans to vaccinate 500,000 workers in Phase I and another 10 million in Phase II, we are taking about a $2 billion unfunded mandate to our localities.

Mr. Speaker, our towns' and cities' budgets are already strained as they conduct other bioterrorism preparedness activities. Our localities do not have sufficient funds to prepare for chemical, biological and radiological terrorism, and more than half of our local governments have reported that smallpox and other bioterrorism planning has negatively affected other local public health services. They are delaying programs, turning down community requests, and reducing the frequency of client visits.

Mr. Speaker, we have asked America's first responders to put their lives on the line to protect the rest of us. The compensation we offer

must be adequate; it must be immediate; it must be guaranteed. I believe the House is united in its appreciation of an support for our first responders. Legislation to compensate them for their illness, disability or death should reflect that level of support. I am disappointed that the bill before us does not do that. I urge the House to reject this bill and I call upon the leadership to return with legislation that will provide a meaningful compensation program for those on the front line against bioterrorism.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the Keeping Children and Families Safe Act (H.R. 14). This legislation reauthorizes several programs that attempt to both prevent and respond to cases of child abuse.

In addition to authorizing spending for these child abuse prevention programs, H.R. 14 also expands their focus to address some of the growing problems within our child protective services system.

For example, the legislation highlights the need to improve the retention and training of child welfare caseworkers. The average tenure of these workers who deal with very difficult cases of dysfunctional families and abused children is less than two years. Such a rapid turnover rate negatively affects the system's ability to make informed decisions about the placement of at-risk children.

The bill also acknowledges the importance of providing mental health and substance abuse services to some of the troubled families in the child welfare system.

We know that appropriate access to these critical services is often very limited--which either delays the reunification of children with their families, or potentially leads to their placement in unsafe environments.

As we laud this bill, we must remember that it authorizes only a few hundred million dollars a year for a whole spectrum of activities related to providing protection and permanency for children. In the context of a foster care system that spends about $5 billion a year on the placement of children outside of their homes, this is a very modest investment.

We also need to keep in mind that this bill is merely an authorization--meaning the funding must still be approved every year by the Appropriations Committee. The CAPTA grants, which the bill authorizes $200 million for next year, were funded at less than half that amount this year ($89 million).

So this bill is a good step in the right direction, but we still have a long road to travel to adequately protect at-risk children. As the year continues, I hope we can emulate the bipartisan spirit of this bill and make some additional progress toward ensuring the safety and well-being of our most vulnerable children.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce the Colon Cancer Screen for Life Act of 2003. Colorectal cancer is the number two cancer killer in the United States. This year, an estimated 147,000 new cases will be diagnosed and more than 57,000 Americans will die from the disease. My home state of Maryland ranks 7th in the nation in the number of new cases and in the number of deaths. Our capital city, Washington, DC, ranks first in the nation.

Colorectal cancer disproportionately impacts the elderly. The risk begins to increase after the age or 40 and rises sharply between the ages of 50 to 55, when it doubles with each

succeeding decade. Despite advances in surgical techniques and adjudvant therapy, there has been only a modest improvement in survival for patients with advanced cancers.

The good news is that colorectal cancer is preventable, and it is highly treatable when discovered early. Most cases of the disease begin an non-cancerous polyps which can be detected and removed during routine screenings--preventing the development of colorectal cancer. Screening tests also save lives even when they detect polyps that have become cancerous by catching the disease in its earliest, most curable stages. The cure rate is up to 93 percent when colorectal cancer is discovered early.

Recognizing the importance of early detection, Congress in 1997 enacted a Medicare colorectal cancer screening benefit. Medicare currently covers either a screening colonoscopy every ten years or a flexible sigmoidoscopy every four years for average-risk individuals. Beneficiaries identified as high risk are entitled to a colonoscopy every two years.

Despite the availability of this benefit, very few seniors are actually being screened for colorectal cancer. Since its implementation in 1998, the percentage of Medicare beneficiaries receiving either a screening or diagnostic colonoscopy has increased by only one percent.

Why aren't more seniors being screened? I believe the problem is due, in part, to rapidly declining coloercal screening reimbursement levels. By 2002, Medicare reimbursement for diagnostic colonoscopies performed in an outpatient setting had declined 36 percent from initial 1998 level. For flexible sigmoidoscopies, payment in 2002 was 54 percent less.

While reimbursement has dropped across the board, cuts have been particularly harsh for screenings provided in hospital outpatient departments (HOPDs) and ambulatory surgery centers (ASCs). In 1997, a colonoscopy performed in one of these settings was reimbursed at approximately $301. Now in 2002, the rate has fallen to about $213.

The facility-specific cuts provide incentives for physicians to perform screenings in their offices, where reimbursement rates have remained between 68 percent and 108 percent higher. As you know, Medicare has established its own criteria for both ASCs and HOPDs to ensure high quality of care and patient safety. While there are office facilities where endoscopy is safely performed, physicians' offices are, for the most part, unregulated environments. This site-of-service differential may interfere with the clinical decision-making process, at the expense of patient safety.

In addition, Medicare currently pays for a consultation prior to a diagnostic colonoscopy, but not for a screening colonoscopy. Since colonoscopy involves conscious sedation, physicians generally do not perform them without a pre-procedure office visit to ascertain a patient's medical history and to educate patients as to the required preparatory steps. In fact, several states now require physicians to consult with patients prior to procedures involving conscious sedation. Because Medicare will not pay for pre-screening consultations, many physicians must provide them for free.

And, unlike screening mammography, colorectal cancer screening tests are subject to the Medicare Part B deductible, which discourages beneficiaries from seeking screening.

My colleague, Representative Phil English, joins me today to introduce this important legislation, as well as my colleagues in the Senate, Joseph Lieberman and Susan Collins. This bill is supported by the American College of Gastroenterology, the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy, and the American Gastroenterological Association. It would improve beneficiary utilization and help ensure the safety of colorectal cancer screenings by doing three things.

First, it would increase reimbursement for colorectal cancer related procedures to ensure that physicians are able to cover the costs of providing these valuable services.

Second, our bill will provide Medicare coverage for a pre-screening office visit. If Medicare will pay for a consultation prior to a diagnostic colonoscopy, it also should pay for a consultation before a screening colonoscopy.

Third, the bill would exempt colorectal cancer screening procedures from the customary Medicare deductible requirement. By reducing the financial requirements on the beneficiary, this law will encourage increased access to colorectal screening services.

The preventive benefits we authorized in 1997 were an important step toward fighting this deadly disease. But the colorectal cancer screening program is in danger of failing without our intervention. I strongly urge all my colleagues to support this critical legislation.

Mr. Chairman, my constituents find it very difficult to understand why at these times that we have economic uncertainty, that we are at war, we have large deficits and we are considering a reckless new tax cut. This amendment is even worse than the underlying bill. I oppose the underlying budget, and I oppose this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, budgets speak to choice. What is important? I am frustrated with this new proposition that every budget priority should take a back seat to tax cuts. What is more important, funding for homeland security or tax cuts? Fiscal responsibility or tax cuts? Protecting Social Security or tax cuts? Prescription drugs for our seniors or tax cuts? Adequate funding for veterans' health and disability benefits or tax cuts? Keeping children nutrition programs or tax cuts? Adequate funding for education or tax cuts?

At a time that we are facing large deficits, it seems to me that we could find a lot better use for $1.3 trillion for tax cuts that primarily benefit the wealthy.

This plan digs a deeper hole in our Federal budget. We should treat the Federal budget with no less consideration than we would treat our own family home budget. This budget digs a deep hole in our Federal budget. It cuts vital programs that help the people in our society we have pledged to assist, our veterans, our children, our parents. It puts more pressure on our States and cities who are already under the fiscal gun, and it shows exactly the wrong kind of budget priorities.

Our budget should speak to our priorities. We must do better. We should approve the budget resolution offered by the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt) that is more fiscally responsible, provides for a modest tax cut targeted to stimulate immediate growth in our economy, and provides adequate resources for prescription drugs for our seniors, education for our children, and homeland defense for all Americans.

I urge my colleagues to vote against the Toomey amendment and the underlying budget resolution and support the Spratt amendment.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of our troops.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the concurrent resolution. We are now at a state of war with Iraq. Regardless of how we as individuals

may feel about the President's decision to go to war, it is imperative that we support the men and women who are in Iraq now and who have put their lives in harm's way.

Over the last few months, we as a nation have engaged in a vigorous discussion concerning our policy toward Iraq. During this time, many people have expressed a differing view from the President's concerning Iraq.

No one should ever mistake our open society for weakness of spirit and resolve. I support our American and allied troops, and I pray for a swift and decisive conclusion with as few casualties as possible.

When the fighting concludes, and if Iraqi President Saddam Hussein and his top officials survive the war, I have introduced a resolution with the gentleman from Pennsylvania, Mr. Weldon, which calls for the establishment of a U.N. war crimes tribunal to investigate and try them for crimes against humanity, genocide and other criminal violations of international law. I have little doubt that such a tribunal is justified. There is an enormous amount of irrefutable evidence that Saddam and his top officials ordered Iraqi soldiers to commit atrocities against their own population and against others, including American soldiers during the 1991 Gulf War.

Our immediate focus after the fighting stops must be to stabilize Iraq and the entire Middle East region. After the war the United States and our international partners must help Iraq transition to a democratic republic that respects the rule of law and human rights. I also look forward to working with the President to ensure that Iraq has the help it needs to transition to a democratic republic that respects the rule of law and human rights.

The weeks ahead will be difficult ones, but I know Americans will join me in supporting our troops who are in harm's way. I also know that all of us want a swift conclusion to this conflict with as little loss of life as possible.

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

I want to thank the gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas), our chairman, and the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel), ranking member, for developing a process where we could act quickly on this bill. I think this is the

first of, I am sure, other actions that we will be able to do as a body to show our support for the men and women that are in harm's way that are ready to answer the call of our Nation. I think all of us want to do everything we can here to support our troops, as today they are ready to act on behalf of our Nation.

I also want to thank the chairman and ranking member for including the provision in here that was brought to our attention from those families of students that are in our military academies. I have the honor of representing Annapolis where the Naval Academy is located. There was a provision in our code that discriminated against families of those that were in the academies in their ability to withdraw moneys from educational savings accounts without penalty. So I want to thank them for including that provision. There are many other provisions in there bill that provide equity for those who serve in our military, and I know all of us are going to show strong support for this legislation. I just really want to express my appreciation to the chairman and ranking member.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today with a heavy heart to condemn in the strongest possible terms the assassination of Serbian Prime Minister Zoran Djindjic.

As a Member of Congress, I express my condolences to the government of Serbia and Montenegro and to the family of the late Prime Minister. Mr. Djindjic was one of the driving forces behind the extradition of Slobodan Milosevic to the Hague for war crimes, and also favored increased political and economic cooperation with the West.

Mr. Speaker, I think it is our responsibility to encourage the government of Serbia and Montenegro to hold all of those responsible for the assassination accountable and to continue their work for economic reform and full cooperation with the War Crimes Tribunal, including the turning over of those indictees who still remain at large and cooperation on the witnesses and the information that is needed.

Again, Mr. Speaker, we offer our condolences to the family.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to bring attention to this body of one provision that is in this bill that deals with extending normal trade relations to Serbia and Montenegro. When this issue was before the Committee on Ways and Means, I offered an amendment that was adopted by the committee that placed conditionality on the normal trade relations based upon cooperation by Serbia and Montenegro with the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslovia.

Mr. Speaker, it is important to move forward in our relations with Serbia, but it is also important to remember the past. There were war crimes committed in the former Yugoslovia where individuals were murdered, mass murders, dislocation of people, solely because of their ethnic background. There are individuals who is have been indicted by the war crimes tribunal that have not been turned over to the Hague. General Mladic and Karadzic were involved in mass murders of innocent people, they were lined up and murdered, and yet they still remain free, even though they are indicted. We needful cooperation with the tribunal, including the turning over of documents and the availability of witnesses.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased that we were able to reach an understanding where the conditionality on this legislation could be removed by additional commitments made by the government of Serbia-Montenegro.

I will make part of the record a letter that I have received. I would like to quote very quickly part of that letter, where the Foreign Minister says, ``I would like to assure you that there is a strong and clear political will of the authorities in Serbia and Montenegro to cooperate with International Criminal Tribunal. Obviously, the most pressing concern is the issue of the arrest and transfer to the Hague of the indicted individuals, in particular General Mladic and those indicted for the crimes at Vukovar. You may rest assure that the resolution of this issue figures high on the agenda of all office holders in Serbia and Montenegro. Furthermore, the institutions of the state union of Serbia and Montenegro, which will be formed in the coming days, will have the opportunity to further contribute to perfecting the cooperation of the ICTY in this regard.''

Mr. Speaker, I would also bring to your attention a letter I received from Secretary of State Powell, where he points out that the FY 2003 Foreign Operations Appropriations Act once again conditions U.S. assistance to the Republic of Serbia. These conditions have been useful in maintaining pressure on Belgrade to comply with its obligations to the ICTU. I can assure you that the Department of State will continue to use every available tool to achieve cooperation with the International Criminal Tribunal by the governments of Serbia and Montenegro.

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from New Jersey (Chairman Smith) of the Helsinki Commission, the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), who has been extremely helpful in this issue, the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Lowey) from the Committee on Appropriations, the staff at the Helsinki committee, the Coalition for International Justice, and Ambassador Prosper, who is our Ambassador at Large for War Crimes, for their cooperation in order to be able to work out further cooperation with the tribunal.

I also want to thank the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Crane) and the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin) for their patience. I know that we have been working on this for a long time, and I appreciate very much giving us the opportunity to work this out.

Congress has played a critical role on advancing human rights, whether it was Jackson-Vanik or the conditionality of foreign aid to governments to make sure that they comply with human rights issues. We have played an active role. We need to continue to play that role. I am proud of the role that this body has played in advancing human rights issues, including compliance with the International Criminal Tribunal.

Mr. Speaker, I include for the record the letter from the Minister for Foreign Affairs of Serbia and Montenegro.

Serbia and Montenegro,

Minister for Foreign Affairs.

Hon. Benjamin L. Cardin,

House of Representatives,

Washington, DC.

Dear Mr. Cardin: I appreciate very much your continuing

interest in the issues related to Serbia and Montenegro and

its relations with the United States. I still remember fondly

our last telephone conversation in which we had the

opportunity to discuss these matters.

At the moment, one of the most pressing issues in this

regard remains extending Normal Trade Relations Treatment

(NTR) to Serbia and Montenegro, which is part of the

Miscellaneous Trade and Technical Corrections Act 2003.

Extending NTR treatment would provide substantial support to

continuing economic reforms in my country which, in turn,

would help the consolidation of our democracy.

I am fully aware of your genuine and well-intentioned

concerns with regard to the cooperation of Serbia and

Montenegro with the International Criminal Tribunal for the

former Yugoslavia (ICTY). I would like to assure you that

there is strong and clear political will of the authorities

in Serbia and Montenegro to cooperate with the ICTY.

Obviously, the most pressing concern is the issue of arrest

and transfer to the Hague of the indicted individuals, in

particular Gen. Mladic and those indicted for the crimes in

Vukovar. You may rest assured that the resolution of this

issue figures high on the agenda of all office holders in

Serbia and Montenegro. Furthermore, the institutions of the

state union of Serbia and Montenegro, which will be formed in

the coming days, will have the opportunity to further

contribute to perfecting the cooperation with the ICTY in

this regard.

At the same time, it should be noted that there has been a

substantial progress in other aspects of our cooperation with

the ICTY, i.e., in providing documents and access to

witnesses. Serbia and Montenegro has provided effective

assistance to the ICTY in relation to locating, interviewing

and testimony of witnesses. In this respect, we have so far

fully responded to almost 90% of the requests for assistance.

In particular, we have provided waivers for more than 100

officials of the former government to testify about

classified matters before the ICTY. These include top

officials such as two former presidents of the FRY, heads of

military and police security services, as well as many high-

ranking military and police officers.

As regards the documents requested by the ICTY, we have

presented thousands of pages of documentation, including

confidential records of the Supreme Defence Council, which is

the commander-in-chief of the Yugoslav Army. I would like to

assure you that we are determined to cooperate even more

effectively with the ICTY in relation to documents and

witnesses, and most notably, with regard to the transfer of

indictees. Further promotion of democracy and economic

prosperity of my country would only create a more favorable

climate for such cooperation. In this regard, extending NTR

treatment would be a welcome signal that Serbia and

Montenegro have the support of the United States and would

bring tangible benefits to our economy and people.

I am confident that you will take this information into

account while assessing the level of cooperation with the

ICTY, and as a result support the initiative to extend NTR

treatment to Serbia and Montenegro.

Sincerely,

Goran Svilanovic.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to honor the exemplary career of Letty L. Carpenter of Jefferson, Maryland, on the occasion of her retirement from the Centers for Medicaid & Medicaid Services (CMS) after 30 years of Federal service. At a time when the need for dedicated public service to our nation is more critical than ever, it gives me great pleasure to honor the commitment Letty has demonstrated to such service, particularly for the low-income and vulnerable populations served by the Medicaid program. Her commitment is even more impressive when you realize that Letty regularly has arisen at 4:00 am to make the long commute from her home in lovely, rural western Maryland to her position with CMS in Washington, DC.

Letty was born and raised in Chicago, Illinois. She received a B.A. in Political Science from the University of Illinois in Urbana, Illinois, and a Masters of Arts in Geography, as well as a Masters of Public Health from the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor. Letty entered Federal service as a volunteer and later a recruiter for the Peace Corps, serving from July 1965 to May 1968. As a volunteer in Senegal, she introduced aural-oral techniques of language instruction to local schools to replace traditional rote teaching methods, wrote instructional materials, and also participated in laying the groundwork for a maternal and child health outreach program through the local hospital. As a recruiter in the United States, she conducted advertising and advance work for the Peace Corps recruitment drives at 40 midwestern universities and colleges. From 1970 to 1974, she worked for the University of Michigan, first as a Community Coordinator then later as a Research Assistant.

Letty continued her Federal career in Washington, DC, in 1974 when she was selected for the Management Intern Program with the Department of Health and Human Services (then HEW). Through this program, she had several rotational assignments to different agencies throughout the Department. From 1977 to 1979, she was a program analyst in the Medical Services Administration of the Social and Rehabilitation Services agency in HEW.

Letty started in the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (formerly the Health Care Financing Administration) in the Medicaid Bureau in January 1979 and has worked for CMS until the present time. She has worked in the Office of Legislation for the last 23 years, where she has played a critical role in the passage of legislation through her assistance to senior managers in HHS, OMB and the White House, as well as Members and staff of Congress and their support agencies.

During her tenure in CMS, Letty has served nine agency Administrators and ten Department Secretaries all of whom have recognized her contributions with numerous awards, including Administrator's Achievement Awards and the Secretary's Award for Distinguished Service.

Letty is recognized nationally, within and outside the government, as a renowned expert in the intricacies of Medicaid law, regulations and policies, particularly those related to the extremely complex area of Medicaid eligibility requirements. She possesses exceptional abilities to skillfully analyze complex situations, focus attention on the key issues, develop practical options to address them, and explain it all in clear, concise and understandable language.

Letty has also skillfully trained numerous current and former colleagues in the complexities of Medicaid policy and part of her legacy in CMS will continue through the knowledge she has imparted to the current employees of the Office of Legislation and other parts of the Agency. Many people call her from around the country, from Federal, State, and local government agencies, as well as the private sector, for assistance because of her expertise in the Medicaid program.

All of Letty's colleagues in CMS and HHS will sorely miss her knowledge, insight, and can-do attitude, as well as her encouragement and lively sense of humor. Letty always has taken her responsibilities to the low-income and other vulnerable beneficiaries of the Medicaid program very seriously, but not herself. I join her colleagues and friends in congratulating her on her impressive achievements and wishing her well as she retires from Federal service. We expect that she will continue to be a valued participant in many important issues, as well as an even more active member of the Jefferson, Maryland, community, where she and her husband, Jim, have long resided.

Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to control the time on this side.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. McDermott).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Stark), one of the distinguished members of the Committee on Ways and Means.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Emanuel), a first-term Member of this body, but a person who is very experienced in developing domestic policy.

Mr. Chairman, how much time remains?

Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding. I would just like to say to the gentleman, I compliment the gentleman for the role he played in 1996. I think our side is trying to protect the product that my colleagues developed in 1996.

This bill that is before us dramatically alters it. The gentleman is right, it was a great success. Why are we now being so prescriptive at the national level?

Mr. Chairman, it is now my pleasure to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), the distinguished whip on the Democratic side.

Mr. Chairman, could I inquire as to the time division?

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

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Doggett).

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

Mr. Chairman, this is a bad bill at the wrong time. I supported the 1996 welfare reform legislation. I thought it was the right thing to do. In 1996, we gave the States flexibility. This legislation takes it back. In 1996, we gave the States the resources they needed. This bill does not give them the dollars in order to do the job.

The legislation before us is remarkably different from the 1996 bill. That is why so many of our Nation's governors have said to us in a letter dated today that we will take a significant step backwards in reforming welfare. This is not the time to replace State flexibility with unfunded mandates.

My chairman says this is not an unfunded mandate. The Congressional Budget Office says it will cost $8 to $11 billion extra money for the States to comply with the requirements in this legislation. The Republican bill gives the States $1 billion more and $1 billion on a promise. That is an unfunded mandate. Maybe technically it is not, because you can transfer monies from other accounts.

Let me tell you a story of my own State of Maryland. Our States have record deficits. In 50 years they have not been this bad. We see that deficits are between $70 to $85 billion in our States. In Maryland, our governor is recommending a 23 percent reduction in child care because of the deficits. And what do we do? Mandate they spend more money by a prescriptive Federal law.

That is not what I voted for in 1996. I voted to give the States flexibility and the resources, and this legislation is taking it away. It is going to hurt our children, it is going to hurt our States, and it is wrong. We should have done better, and had we gone through a normal process, we would have had a chance to explore what happened during this past year, correct the mistakes in this body and not rely on a conference.

I urge my colleagues to reject this bill. We will offer an alternative, a substitute, later on in the debate so we can correct these mistakes.

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

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment in the nature of a substitute that was made in order under the rule.

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

I would like to thank the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Kind) and the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Woolsey) for joining me in offering this substitute. I want to thank the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel), the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin), the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller), and many other members of the Democratic Caucus who helped us in bringing forward this substitute.

As I said during general debate, the underlying bill before us is the wrong bill at the wrong time in order to help people that are currently in the welfare system. It is time to take welfare to the next step. Yes, we have been successful in removing individuals from the cash assistance rolls, but we have not been as successful as getting American families and children out of poverty. It is time to take welfare reform to the next step and to help American families escape not only cash assistance in welfare but poverty. There are significant differences between the underlying bill and the substitute. The substitute maintains State flexibility. It allows the States to provide education and training for the people that are on welfare.

Mr. Chairman, we have made a commitment in this Congress to education, leave no child behind. We say it is important for everyone except for someone who is on welfare. That is wrong. Our bill maintains and expands the flexibility to the State in education and training. Under the majority bill, if a State has a person working 20 hours a week in a traditional job and receiving 20 hours of job training, that person does not qualify for TANF assistance. That is wrong. The States should have the flexibility to tailor the program. Our bill, our substitute, allows that to continue. If a State chooses to cover legal immigrants, the State should have that option. There should be State flexibility. The underlying bill does not permit it; the substitute permits it.

The underlying bill provides for an unfunded mandate on our States, according to the Congressional Budget Office, $11 billion of extra expenditure by our States, and we only provide $1 billion of extra assistance. Under the bill before us, we provide $11 billion of additional child support to our States so they have the dollars necessary in order to carry out this very important program.

Mr. Chairman, a lot has changed since last year. Our States are struggling with large deficits. We should act as a partner with our States. We should not dictate to our States how they must configure their work requirements. We should trust the States as we did in 1996, allow them to provide the programs necessary to get people off of welfare, to get people in employment.

Our bill provides for a meaningful work requirement for real jobs so that American families can succeed in our economic system.

Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues, who have been bragging about the success of the 1996 law, to build upon it. Do not destroy it. Listen to what our governors are saying when they tell you, without this substitute, we are moving backwards with unfunded mandates on the States. We have a chance to correct it.

I urge Members to support the substitute.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to my friend, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Kleczka), a distinguished member of the Committee on Ways and Means.

Mr. Chairman, it is my privilege to yield 3\1/2\ to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Kind), one of the coauthors of the substitute.

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Woolsey), who has been one of the key architects of the Democratic substitute.

I really congratulate her for her work on this.

Mr. Chairman, it is my pleasure to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin), one of the architects of the provisions in this bill, particularly as it relates to real work requirements.

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds.

Mr. Chairman, I am somewhat confused. I have listened to the debate from the other side and I think they are supporting my substitute, but then at the end they say they are not. They all say they are for child care support, and yet we know in California alone this bill will cost $2.8 billion, more than all of the money that has been provided in this bill, which is only $1 billion of mandatory funding. So if you are for child care support for the welfare recipients, I assume my colleagues will be supporting the substitute. It is the only opportunity we are going to have to provide the additional monies.

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentlewoman from California (Ms. Waters).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sandlin), a valuable member of the Committee on Ways and Means.

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

Am I correct that the gentleman from California has no further requests for time other than closing?

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

Mr. Chairman, 41 of our 46 States responded to a survey saying that if the Republican bill is enacted, they will have to fundamentally change their programs. The programs we have all been bragging will about will be no longer. They will need to change them radically and create what is known as makeshift work-fare-type jobs that lead nowhere.

We just got a letter today from many of our governors saying, please do not take a significant step backwards in reforming welfare. This is not the time to replace State flexibilities with unfunded mandates.

If you are going to give the dollar amounts of the extra monies the States receive under your bill, why do you not tell the whole story, the extra cost? Every State will end up in the negative under the Republican bill.

If you believe the 1996 bill was a success, why are you going back and destroying what we did in 1996 on flexibility to the States? If you believe that child care is important and we need to help our States, why are you not supporting the substitute that provides $11 billion of extra money for child support?

If you believe the arguments that have been made on both sides of the aisle, you will support the substitute.

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

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to recommit.

I am in the present form.

Mr. Speaker, the motion is very straightforward. It increases child care by $11 billion, which is the cost, the extra cost, to the States.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Bell), a new member of the House.

Mr. Speaker, the majority will say that they have a letter from the Congressional Budget Office saying that this is not an unfunded mandate, but what the majority will not mention is that they have a letter from the Congressional Budget Office that says that this bill will significantly change the way the States have to spend their money on TANF; that it will cost them an additional $11 billion in order to comply with the mandates that are included in this bill.

Now, my definition of an unfunded mandate is telling the States they have to do something and not giving them the extra money to do it with. That is exactly what the bill does. It mandates the States to develop workfare programs, it requires the States to spend more money on child care in order to deal with the new work requirements, and the States do not have the money and resources to do it.

Mr. Speaker, I have heard my colleagues on both sides of the aisle say they are for child care, that children should not be penalized, that we have to have safe and affordable child care. Our States are telling us they need the money. This motion does one thing and one thing only: It increases the amount of child care by $11 billion to equal what our Congressional Budget Office is telling us is the increased burden on the States. That is all it does.

I would urge my colleagues to listen to our governors. Listen to what we have said in the past about unfunded mandates. Listen to what we have said about protecting our children and support the motion to recommit.

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

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