Floor Statements

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

Mr. Chairman, I rise as a cosponsor of the Hinchey amendment. The FCC's decision of June 2 to loosen the rules on concentrated media ownership will lead to fewer voices controlling more of the news we watch, read, and listen to. It will undermine our access to the independent, unbiased local information that matters to our communities.

Last week, as the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) and the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf) have stressed, the Committee on Appropriations took an important step in voting on a bipartisan basis to suspend changes to the national TV ownership cap, a key part of the media ownership rules the FCC voted to relax on June 2.

The Hinchey-Price-Inslee amendment would finish the job by suspending the two remaining rules that the FCC weakened: the newspaper-broadcast cross-ownership rule and the local TV multiple ownership rule, which would open the way for more duopolies and even triopolies in owning and controlling local media.

These amendments, together, are the appropriations equivalent of H.R. 2462, introduced by the gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Sanders) and cosponsored by a bipartisan group of 88 Members.

Restoring the previous rules is essential to preserving localism, diversity, and competition on our airwaves, standards basic to a vibrant democracy.

Mr. Chairman, the richness and diversity of community life in America has been recognized by observers since Tocqueville as one of our country's abiding strengths. The broadcast media emerged in the 20th century as critical in relating individuals and groups of individuals to each other and to the world beyond.

The term ``media'' suggests a linkage beyond the locality to the worlds of politics and economics and entertainment and culture; but it also suggests communication within and across a locality or a region, whereby isolated consumers of media have their identities as members of the community strengthened, their knowledge increased, their participation enhanced.

If the day comes, and I am afraid it is fast approaching, when local media are merely a conduit for nationally generated information and entertainment, or when a single or few companies monopolize broadcasting in most local communities, we will have lost a critically important component of community life.

There are those who say that the presence of 200 options on cable or satellite television renders the public interest criterion of diversity a moot concern. They could not be more wrong. It is competition among local broadcasters in offering news and public affairs, weather, sports and other programming that produces the kind of diversity and the kind of audience engagement that enhance community life.

The Hinchey-Price amendment also concerns concentrated power and influence. This concentration has already gone too far in radio. I cannot imagine why we would want to take television down the same path.

Regardless of one's political views, it is unsettling to hear of Cumulus Media banning a vocal group from the play list of all of its outlets on political grounds.

Then there is the example of a prominent Raleigh media executive who owns a Fox affiliate. He has been able to reject some network ``reality'' shows as inappropriate. He wonders with good reason whether the managers of Fox-owned and -operated stations would have that same discretion to respect community standards.

Mr. Chairman, in the history of media policy, there has never been a moment when the public was more engaged than they are right now. A recent poll demonstrates that half of Americans are well aware of this media concentration issue; and of those who follow the issue closely, 70 percent are opposed to the new FCC rules, while only 6 percent are in favor.

Our constituents see this issue quite clearly: this is big media companies and their allies in government squaring off against the public interest. The question is, how do we see it, and to whom will Congress listen?

Mr. Chairman, it is time to stand against an FCC decision that was taken with scant public input and in defiance of the public interest.

Colleagues, let us not get diverted by convoluted, tactical second- guessing. If Members favor the substance of our amendment and if they oppose the substance of the FCC decision, they should stand up for what they believe.

I ask my colleagues to reaffirm the core values of our country's media policy--localism, competition and diversity--and to support the Hinchey-Price amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to rise in support of H.R. 2211, the Ready to Teach Act, and to highlight the new provisions for recruiting and training teachers that it contains.

Our Nation faces the unprecedented challenge of recruiting and retaining an additional 2.5 million teachers over the next 10 years. This is necessary to keep pace with anticipated retirements and a growing student population. It is also a critical aspect of education reform. The No Child Left Behind Act requires that every teacher be ``highly qualified'' by the 2005-06 school year. In fact, there is hardly an aspect of educational reform that does not depend on a well- trained and highly motivated teaching force.

That is why I introduced the Teaching Fellows Act, H.R. 1805, modeled on a program established in 1986 by the North Carolina General Assembly that has brought some 4,000 young people into our State's teaching force and that offers, I believe, a model for national emulation. I am grateful to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Ballenger), a cosponsor of H.R. 1805, and to the gentleman from California (Chairman McKeon), and to the ranking member, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Kildee) and to many

other subcommittee and full committee members for their cooperation in writing major elements of the Teaching Fellows Act into the bill that is before us today.

Much as we envisioned in the Teaching Fellows Act, H.R. 2211, as amended in committee, would establish State scholarship programs for prospective teachers and give them the preparation and support they need to make a long-term commitment to the field. Scholarships could be offered to high school students embarking on a 4-year program or to students farther along in college when they might be better prepared to make a career choice.

The bill also contains a second recruitment initiative: Through partnerships between community colleges and 4-year schools, H.R. 2211 would offer fellowships to 2-year students, particularly those in training as teaching assistants, to go on for their bachelor's degree and full teaching certification. This community college component of the program is especially promising for rural and small town areas. Too often our beginning teachers are lured away by schools in the big cities and the affluent suburbs, leaving rural and inner-city schools behind. But community colleges typically contain people more deeply rooted in these underserved areas, and enabling them to complete a 4- year degree would be a promising strategy for identifying and training a cadre of ``home-grown'' teachers.

The program we envision would not merely throw money at individual students, but would seek, through rich, extracurricular programs, to promote espirit de corps and collaborative learning, to strengthen professional identity, and to provide a support system as students first enter the classroom as teachers. Students would participate in various community and school-based internships and experiences that go well beyond normal teacher preparation. In North Carolina, these enrichment programs have featured orientations to school systems, communities, and educational issues, as well as experiences like Outward Bound and international travel.

In exchange, scholarship recipients would be required to teach in a public school for a minimum of 1 year plus a period of time equivalent to the length of their scholarships. In this the program would resemble the National Health Service Corps, which helps finance students' medical and dental education in exchange for service in underserved areas, and early National Service proposals, which envisioned young people being given scholarships as compensation for community service. The ideas of reciprocal obligation and community service would thus be enlisted in the service of teaching, which is surely one of the best ways one can imagine of giving back to the community and to the next generation.

Finally, the legislation assumes that the route to success is not through regimented, top-down administration, but through a decentralized structure that engages and empowers local leaders and participants. States would be given the option of running their programs through nonprofit organizations separate from their department of education, an arrangement that has fostered innovation and flexibility in North Carolina.

Mr. Chairman, H.R. 2211 does not include all of the elements of the Teaching Fellows Act, and it leaves future funding levels indeterminate. It will require us to work with the Department of Education to get an energetic program up and running, and to push in this body for adequate annual appropriations. But I am enthused at the opportunity this bill affords to initiate and expand State scholarship programs for prospective teachers. I want to commend and thank those colleagues on both sides of the aisle who have contributed to this effort.

Mr. Speaker, many of us will vote for House Resolution 294 because we indeed deplore the terrorist attacks inflicted on Israel. We wish to express solidarity with the people of Israel. And we understand the necessity of the Palestinian Authority confronting and fighting terror and terrorist organizations.

I am baffled and dismayed, however, by the resolution's failure to straightforwardly endorse the effort of our government and our Quartet partners to implement the so-called ``Roadmap'' which, at this moment, represents Israel's best hope for ending terror and the Palestinians' best hope for achieving self-determination. We must condemn terrorism without qualification, and that is consistent with promoting the simultaneous accommodations by both sides which the Roadmap envisions. We must affirm Israel's right to defend itself, but that is consistent with urging on Israel tactics and timing that do not undermine the Roadmap initiative, as our President and our Secretary of State have recently articulated.

What this resolution fails fully to grasp is that concern for Israel's security and integrity is a major motivation for many of us, most of us, as we push for American leadership via the Roadmap. This effort will require all of the energy and persistence and support we can muster, in this body and in our government, in the critical weeks that lie ahead.

Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to participate in this first-ever debate on the Homeland Security appropriations bill. I want to commend the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Rogers), the chairman; and the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Sabo), the ranking member, for their leadership of our subcommittee and the fine staff, majority and minority, for their good work.

Our task was to develop a budget where none had previously existed for a Department that is struggling to master its mission. Hearings could not even be arranged for many of the largest and most important of the Department's 11 major agencies. As a result, we did not have the benefit of questioning important agencies such as Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Citizenship and Immigration Services, Information Analysis and Infrastructure Protection, and Office of Domestic Programs. Those four agencies alone constitute 31 percent of the Department's total budget.

The bill before us today provides over $35 billion for the new Department, which is $1 billion over the administration's request. In addition to providing for big-ticket items such as $5.6 billion for Project Bioshield, it provides $4.4 billion in grants to our first responders, which is 25 percent more than the President requested, and $900 million for the science and technology directorate to promote the research and development of security-related technologies.

I am also pleased with the attention paid to the equally important non-homeland security traditional missions of the many agencies now incorporated in this new Department. For example, the bill before us today rejects the administration's proposal to discontinue the section 404 postdisaster hazard mitigation program and combines it with $200 million for predisaster mitigation activities to both learn from the past and prepare for the future.

I am also encouraged that the bill recognizes the potential of our Nation's institutions of higher learning: $80 million is included for the rapid development of promising homeland security technologies by universities, national laboratories, nonprofit institutions and private companies, as well as $35 million for university and fellowship programs, including $25 million for the creation of university-based centers of excellence.

There are, however, Mr. Chairman, ample grounds for concern: for example, the security of our Nation's ports. Despite no request from the administration, the subcommittee has appropriated $100 million for port security grants to shore up our significant vulnerabilities there. Unfortunately, our Republican friends rejected a Democratic amendment that would have added $500 million toward the $4.4 billion the Coast Guard estimates is needed for port facility security improvements. We would have paid for that by a small reduction in the tax cut going to people making over $1 million a year.

Still, the subcommittee has been assured and must continue to demand the completion of port vulnerability assessments at the Nation's 55 largest ports by the end of 2004.

I remain concerned, Mr. Chairman, with overall fiscal year 2004 appropriations for law enforcement and emergency services. Given the importance of our Nation's first responders to the security of our communities, I want to ensure that the overall funding levels for the Office of Justice Programs, Community Oriented Policing Services, (COPS), the Byrne grant programs, and related accounts remain at or above fiscal 2003 levels.

I support this Homeland Security appropriations bill with the expectation that other appropriations bills, unlike the President's budget request, will provide adequately for first responders. We cannot allow those on the front lines to fall victim to an appropriations shell game, giving with one hand, taking away with the other, to the detriment of our local communities.

Mr. Chairman, it has been over a year and a half since September 11. Much has been accomplished; yet many, many challenges remain. I rise today in support of this appropriations bill, while recognizing the progress we have yet to make in providing for the security of our homeland.

Madam Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and include therein extraneous material on the subject of the special order today.

Mr. Speaker, I come to the floor tonight with several of my colleagues to discuss our Republican friends' proposed tax cut package and the way it will affect the Federal budget and the American people.

Mr. Speaker, President Bush has presided over the Nation's worst economic performance since the Great Depression and the worst fiscal reversal in all of American history. Since President Bush took office, we have lost more than 2.7 million private sector jobs, and real GDP has inched at only 1.5 percent annually, the worst record for any administration in over 50 years. The 10-year $5.6 trillion unified budget surplus projected when President Bush

came into office is gone, totally gone. In its place the administration has proposed a budget with over $2 trillion in deficits over that same time period. That is a fiscal reversal approaching $8 trillion.

These charts tell the story. Here we have the fiscal reversal illustrated going from a $5.6 trillion surplus 2 years ago projected until now looking at a $2 trillion deficit over the next 10 years. And this chart gives the picture on jobs. In the first 28 months of the Clinton administration, 6.8 million private sector jobs gained, 1993 through April of 1995. In the first 28 months of the Bush administration, 2.7 million private sector jobs lost as of April of this year.

Unfortunately, in the face of all this, in the face of the worst fiscal reversal in this Nation's history, the response of our Republican friends is to propose more and more of the same failed policies. Finding themselves in a hole, their message seems to be just keep digging. Mr. Speaker, Democrats believe that a stimulus plan should be based on three simple principles, principles that should be self-evident but that our Republican friends incredibly seem unable to grasp.

First, a stimulus plan should be fair. It should put money back in the pockets of average Americans, boosting consumer demand and the business investment needed to meet it.

Secondly, a stimulus plan should actually stimulate the economy. It should be fast-acting with its impact concentrated to provide an immediate jump-start to the economy. It should get the most bang for the buck by targeting consumers likely to spend and businesses likely to invest and hire new workers.

Finally, a stimulus plan should be fiscally sound. It should be paid for. It should not pile up national debt. It should not contain gimmicks which disguise its true cost.

Mr. Speaker, the Democratic plan that we will be debating tomorrow is organized around these three principles. The Republican plan fails to meet the standards by a country mile. It is not even close. Tomorrow the House is scheduled to debate the Republicans' $550 billion tax cut, every penny of it borrowed money, funded by increased government debt that will be passed on to our children and grandchildren.

Tax cuts that actually stimulate the economy during a downturn make good sense. However, the Republican plan only puts in place 9 percent of its tax cuts this year, precisely when they are needed the most. The House Republican plan centers on tax cuts, on stock dividends and capital gains, both of which economists have rated as very ineffective in stimulating the economy. These proposals would benefit mainly upper- income individuals who are much more likely to save such windfalls than would be low- and moderate-income families. Under the Republicans' proposal millionaires would receive approximately $139 billion in tax cuts through 2013. That is essentially the same amount of tax cuts that would be received by the entire bottom 89 percent of households combined.

Mr. Speaker, it is simply irresponsible to be considering large upper-bracket tax cuts that will worsen the long-term deficit to the tune of $1.2 trillion over the next 10 years, to be doing this at a time when we should be paying down the national debt to prepare for the retirement of the baby boom generation, which after all begins in only 5 years. Moreover the Republican plan is full of phony sunsets and other gimmicks that actually understate its true cost.

By contrast House Democrats have proposed a stimulus package that is fast, fair acting, fiscally responsible, and paid for. It uses a proven approach to creating jobs and growing the economy, puts money directly into the hands of average Americans, the very people most likely to spend it, and it provides tax relief to businesses most likely to invest. It focuses on jump-starting the economy now at a fraction of the cost of the Republican tax cut proposal. It provides permanent tax cuts for most American families, including an immediate increase in the child tax credit, marriage penalty relief, the expansion of the 10 percent tax bracket. The House Democratic plan also extends unemployment benefits for 26 weeks. It increases the level of benefits and provides temporary aid to States to broaden coverage to low-wage earners and part-time workers. These benefits would provide financial help to 5 million out-of-work Americans, and economists have rated that as one of the most effective stimuli that would we could apply.

In contrast the Republican plan would allow the Federal Unemployment Benefits program to expire on May 31, leading to millions of families being denied this unemployment insurance to help tide them over.

What about the States? As a result of a bad economy, States are facing the worst fiscal crisis since World War II. States across the country are cutting education and health programs and raising taxes, undermining jobs, undermining economic recovery. The Democratic jobs and growth plan in stark contrast to the Republican plan which has said to the States go elsewhere, the Democratic plan would provide $44 billion in aid to States to minimize tax increases and service cuts and to prevent the job losses that would otherwise occur.

The second chart compares the stimulative effect of the proposals I have been discussing. If we extend Federal unemployment benefits for every dollar we spend, the stimulative effect in the economy, the amount of economic activity generated, comes to $1.73, one of the most effective things we could do. If we support the States through Medicaid and education and homeland security funding, for every dollar we invest that way we get $1.24 in bang for the buck, also a good stimulative effect.

The centerpiece for our Republican friends' dividend tax reduction, 9 cents of impact for every dollar of revenue lost. If what we are talking about is stimulating the economy, then this chart says it all.

Finally, the Democratic plan would provide companies with a tax credit worth up to $2,400 for hiring somebody who has been out of work at least 6 months and includes $29 billion in tax incentives to generate investment and jobs now, such as allowing small businesses to expense up to $75,000 of the cost of new investments through 2004, triple the current limit. In other words, businesses would be encouraged to invest sooner rather than later, again fueling economic growth.

Mr. Speaker, the bottom line is that the Democratic plan would create almost twice as many jobs as the Republican plan in the first year. Let me be specific. The Democratic plan would create 1.1 million jobs compared to the Republicans' 600,000 jobs. And the Democratic plan would achieve this at a fraction of the cost.

Instead of saddling our children and grandchildren with a mounting national debt, I urge my colleagues to support the Democratic plan that will help revive the economy, promotes economic growth, offers tax relief to those who need it most, uses honest accounting, and is paid for.

A number of Members are going to be speaking over this hour about the choices that we have tomorrow and about what we can do now, what we can do effectively to turn this economy around and to do that in a fiscally responsible way, and I yield to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran), a valued colleague from Virginia, a member of the Committee on the Budget who over the years has stood for fiscal integrity, fiscal responsibility.

Why on Earth would our Republican friends want to do such a thing? It clearly is something that they do not intend to stick by. They do not really intend for these tax cuts to expire. Why would they write such a bill?

Before we yield to our colleague from Washington State, let me just commend the gentleman for a powerful statement and also for reminding us of a little bit of history, not too ancient history, but history that goes back to 1993 and a night on this House floor that many of us will never forget, where without a single Republican vote we passed a far-reaching plan to move the budget toward balance; and in fact from every year from then forward, until this President took office, every year for 8 years the deficit came down.

The strongest economy and the most sustained recovery. We even reached the point where we were running a surplus, not just a Social Security surplus, but a surplus in the general fund of this government. We retired $400 billion worth of the national debt. But our Republican friends might not be convinced by that historical lesson. It does not reflect very well on them.

So let me just ask the gentleman, look back to some previous Republican administrations. Is it not true that in 1982, when the Nation went into a recession and President Reagan had pushed through some tax cuts and the deficits were mounting, that with Senator Robert Dole's leadership some of those tax cuts were rescinded and some spending was cut? The Congress and the President found themselves in a hole, and they quit digging. They at least quit digging. They did not make the problem worse. To some extent they halted the deterioration of our fiscal situation.

Then think about the first President Bush. I am sure you remember that battle. President Bush said ``read my lips'' and had gotten himself locked into a situation. But when the economy declined, when the fiscal situation deteriorated, he had the courage and the statesmanship to work with Democrats across the aisle and to put a 5- year budget plan in place. So the first President Bush, when he found himself in a hole, he quit digging.

So if our Republican friends do not find the 1993 episode instructive, then maybe they will find those earlier episodes instructive. Then the question comes back, why is it that this White House seems to feel none of that restraint? Why is it that this Republican leadership seems to feel none of that concern, but is perfectly willing, finding themselves in a deep and dangerous fiscal hole, to propose that we should just keep digging?

I thank the gentleman.

I turn to our colleague, the gentleman from the State of Washington (Mr. McDermott), a member of the Committee on Ways and Means and a long time member of the Committee on the Budget.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman and I particularly appreciate his focus on the plight of the States. My colleagues may recall that the governors were in town a few weeks ago, Democratic and Republican governors who went to the White House, I understand, and talked about the ways that in a temporary way there could be some help for the States and, as we said earlier, help for the States is one of the best ways to stimulate the economy. It gives good bang for the buck. They suggested such obvious ideas as a little better cost-sharing on Medicare temporarily to tide them over. What kind of reception did they get down there, Republican and Democratic governors alike?

Stiff-armed, I understand.

What about our Republican colleagues in the House? They are supposedly in closer touch with these local communities. Does their bill contain one dime of help for the States?

And the Democratic plan, $44 billion, it is temporary, it stimulates the economy, it helps bail the States out. It will help avoid counterproductive things at the State level, cutting back services, raising taxes. What good is it going to do to cut taxes here if they have to be reimposed at the State level?

Mr. Speaker, there is nobody within our hearing tonight who could not think of better public and private uses for that than throwing it down the rat hole of $300 billion, $400 billion of interest on the debt each year. I thank the gentleman for his contribution.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased now to recognize our colleague from Virginia, another colleague from Virginia (Mr. Scott), a member of the Committee on the Budget and a much respected Member of this body who has made himself an expert on budget affairs, and we appreciate him having his usual array of charts tonight to illustrate the situation we are facing.

Mr. Speaker, if I could just ask the gentleman to underscore what he just said. Are you saying that the amount that it would take to make Social Security whole for the next 75 years is less than the amount of this Republican tax cut?

Yes.

I wonder if the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott) would put the chart back up giving the distribution of who benefits from these tax cuts, because on the talk shows these days you sometimes hear it said, well, of course, the tax cuts are mainly going to benefit the wealthy because they are the ones that pay the taxes. As a matter of fact, is it not true that this tax cut compounds the advantage of the wealthy? It does not just mirror their advantage.

For example, if you look just at millionaires, millionaires in this country pay 19 percent of the income taxes, but what percent of this tax cut do you think they get? Twenty-seven percent. They get 27 percent of the tax cut; they pay 19 percent of the taxes. So it just does not wash to say, well, they are paying more taxes, so naturally they get a better tax cut.

The fact is this is a grossly unfair tax cut, and it targets those in the upper brackets. That is not fair, but it also does not do what needs to be done in terms of turning this economy around.

I thank the gentleman for a very fine presentation.

I yield to the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Larson).

Mr. Speaker, the gentleman is absolutely right. As to the pressing nature of these needs, many of them carry out of the State level at the time that our States are flat on their back fiscally, and our Republican friends are offering no help in that regard whatsoever.

The gentleman talks about tax cuts. And we know people would rather pay less taxes than more. We are all pleased when we can offer tax cuts; but it does matter what kind of tax cuts.

Sure and that is what we need to face. If you are going to have tax cuts then, for goodness sake, have the honesty and the integrity to pay for those tax cuts so it is not coming out of the hide of the most vulnerable among us.

There are some tax cuts in the Democratic proposal, but they are aimed at the broad middle class in this country. They were designed to stimulate the economy and they are paid for. And in all three of those respects they contrast with these upper-bracket tax cuts which our Republican friends are trying to peddle as an economic stimulus when I do not know any economist who is going to tell you you get much bang for the buck from cutting the tax on dividends for goodness sake. The estimate I have heard is 9 cents on the dollar. That is not a very good return.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman.

Before we run out of time, I want to turn to one of our most passionate and effective advocates in the House, the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur).

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman, and I want to thank all of my colleagues who were part of this Special Order tonight.

Often we have very heated debates in this House and we have a good bit of rhetoric filling the air; sometimes there may even be an exaggeration or two. But I must say with respect to this bill tomorrow and with respect to our fiscal situation, we are not exaggerating. We are not exaggerating the danger we face. We are not exaggerating the unprecedented character of the risks that are being taken with our fiscal future by this administration and by the leadership of this House.

We are not exaggerating the differences between the parties.

There is a simple three-point test that any proposal ought to be able to pass: Is it effective? Does it stimulate the economy? Is it broad based and fair? Is it fiscally responsible? The two plans before us tomorrow could not be more opposed or more different in the way those basic questions are answered.

So I thank all of my colleagues for helping us line this out tonight and address our colleagues about this critical debate. It is not an exaggeration to say that our fiscal future is on the line, and I appreciate all those who have helped point that out so forcefully this evening.

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

Mr. Speaker, if I can interrupt for one second, I wonder if the gentleman could talk about the effect of these tax cuts on the economy.

It is often said this is the way to stimulate the economy and that particularly the President's new round of tax cuts is going to be the key to turning the economy around. I just saw some figures released today by the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, and they talk about how different measures would stimulate the economy.

If you extended emergency Federal unemployment benefits, for example, for every dollar that you use for that purpose you get $1.73 of economic stimulus, because these folks are going to use that extra money for the necessities of life and they are going to pour it right back into the economy.

If you help State governments, for example, with their Medicaid expenses, for every dollar you put into that you get $1.24 worth of stimulus.

But what about dividend tax reduction? For every dollar of revenue you lose to dividend tax reduction, the stimulative effect on the economy is all of 9 cents. Nine cents.

So would the gentleman say these upper bracket tax cuts do very much to improve our economic situation?

Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

The situation the gentleman is describing reminds one of the old saying: if you find yourself in a hole, the first thing to do is to stop digging.

Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will again yield, that is simply an unprecedented situation. If we look back at previous Republican administrations, what is striking is that when they found themselves at a certain point in a deep enough hole, they did stop digging.

In the Reagan administration in 1982 under Senator Robert Dole's leadership, some of the tax cuts of earlier times were reversed and some spending was cut, and the fiscal erosion was halted.

Then in 1990, under the first President Bush, despite his ``read my lips''

pledge of no new taxes, when the fiscal hole got deep enough and the economy was in a severe downturn, the President, in a considerable act of statesmanship, worked with congressional Democrats and came up with a 5-year budget plan that set us on the path to more sensible fiscal policy.

So in those past Republican administrations, when the hole got deep enough, some leadership was exerted and they stopped digging. In this administration, it seems there is no limit to the fiscal folly.

Mr. Speaker, today I am introducing the Teaching Fellows Act of 2003 with fourteen original cosponsors.

The most critical education issue we face is the recruitment and retention of high-quality teachers. In order to keep pace with anticipated retirements and the growing student population, local school districts will need to hire an estimated 2.5 million teachers over the next ten years! These projected shortages are especially serious in some states and districts--especially inner cities and the rapidly growing West and South--and in subjects such as special education, mathematics, physical sciences, and foreign languages.

While all the education improvements and reforms we envision are dependent on a first-rate teaching force, neither political party has given teacher recruitment and retention top billing on its education agenda or has moved beyond stereotypical responses to the challenge.

Neither offering federal stipends or student loan forgiveness to prospective teachers--as proposed by the Clinton administration--nor exhorting individuals to pursue teaching careers--an approach favored by the current administration--is likely to produce the kind of intensive, sustained effort we need to nurture prospective teachers, strengthen their professional identity, and help them succeed once they enter the classroom.

There is no single, simple solution, but I believe that North Carolina's successful Teaching Fellows program offers a model for national emulation. The Teaching Fellows Act would create two federal programs to encourage our best and brightest students to enter and remain in the field of teaching by offering them scholarships as well as professional development and mentoring assistance. One program would offer fellowships and intensive training for high school seniors and college sophomores who want to become teachers, while another would enable teaching assistants and other community college students to earn their four-year teaching certificates. In exchange, these scholarship recipients would be required to teach for at least four years in a public school or three years in a low-performing school following graduation.

The No Child Left Behind Act requires that every teacher be ``highly- qualified'' by the 2005-06 school year. In order to meet that need, we must embark on an unprecedented teacher recruitment and retention effort. The Teaching Fellows Act gets to the heart of the need for quality and quantity in America's teaching force. We know that such programs work, and with the federal support this bill would provide, these state programs could be building blocks for the intensive national recruitment and retention effort that is essential to strengthening our public education system.

I would like to invite all members of the House to cosponsor the Teaching Fellows Act, and I look forward to working with my colleagues to make sure our schools will have the teachers they need to be successful.

Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding and for taking out this Special Order tonight to discuss the fiscal folly that this administration and the Republican leadership of this House are engaged in.

The President's budget and the budget passed by Republicans in the House really give us the worst of both worlds. The Republican budget takes us over the cliff fiscally, with $2 trillion being added to the publicly held debt over the next 5 years, by 2008. At the same time there are deep cuts in basic domestic obligations and priorities that we simply must meet. All this is to make room for the President's tax cut, mainly benefitting the upper bracket taxpayers.

I appreciate the gentleman giving us a chance tonight to hear from a number of Members who will talk about various aspects of this budget and the way that it will affect our constituents and the American people.

As a member of the Committee on Appropriations subcommittee that oversees veterans affairs, I am especially glad that we are bringing much-needed attention to the issue of veterans benefits. The budget adopted on a party line vote in the House on March 21 includes cuts of more than $28 billion in veterans benefits over the next 10 years. That includes cuts in both entitlement funding and in discretionary funding, and these cuts, Mr. Speaker, come at a time when the VA health care system is already in a state of crisis.

Indeed, there are more than 200,000 veterans waiting 6 months or longer now for their first medical appointment with the VA.

The cuts are in both entitlements and discretionary spending.

The House Republican budget cuts appropriated programs for veterans below the level needed to maintain 2003 purchasing power over the next 10 years by a total of $14.2 billion. This would necessitate major cuts in veterans health care, because health care makes up 96 percent of the discretionary spending that we do for veterans.

The Department of Veterans Affairs projection shows that there is going to be no decrease in the core population of eligible veterans over that time period, nothing that would reduce the demand for health care, and the population of noncore, that is, Priority 7 and 8 veterans, is projected to increase over that period.

So the funding reductions in veterans health care in the House Republican budget would reduce the number of veterans that the VA could treat; our estimate is a reduction of an average of 280,000 persons per year, or about 5.7 percent, over the next 10 years. That is a drastic cut. That is a slap in the face to people who have served this country honorably and well and whom we have promised would have their health care needs met.

Our Republican friends are also wanting to cut entitlement spending for veterans. The so-called reconciliation instructions in the Republican plan require $14.6 billion in unspecified reductions in veterans benefits to root out the waste, fraud and abuse that House Republicans apparently believe can be found in veterans programs. This $14.6 billion cut represents a cut of 3.8 percent in mandatory spending, far below the levels in current law.

The Republicans have claimed that this is a 1 percent reduction. The red line on this chart is what it would take to maintain the current purchasing power of these veterans entitlement programs. The blue line is the claimed 1 percent reduction, but the green line is what the Republican budget actually would do. Those are the cuts that we would see, the erosion in present purchasing power of programs for veterans.

What would we have to do to achieve these savings? Well, maybe one option would be to eliminate burial benefits for veterans, or maybe we could reduce the cost-of-living allowances or compensation payments for veterans with service-connected disabilities for the next 6 to 10 years. Our Republican friends do not say, but with numbers this drastic, cuts this drastic, there is no question that we would be seeing a serious erosion in benefits.

I would like to recognize the gentlewoman from Oregon (Ms. Hooley), a member of the Committee on Veterans Affairs and a champion of veterans, and would invite her to comment on the situation that we are facing.

Mr. Speaker, let me just read what the national commander of the Disabled American Veterans says about that very subject. He says it better than I could.

``Has Congress no shame?'' he said a couple of weeks ago when this Republican budget was before the House. ``Is there no honor left in the hallowed halls of our government that you choose to dishonor the sacrifice of our Nation's heroes and rob our programs, health care and disability compensation, to pay for tax cuts for the wealthy?'' That is his diagnosis, and I think it is hard to argue with.

On the contrary, I do not know of any economist who believes that the tax cuts this administration is proposing would have a stimulative effect on this economy. These are tax cuts that would exempt dividends from taxation and rate cuts that would affect mainly the top brackets, people who would not be spending the money and stimulating the economy.

Mr. Speaker, we had before our subcommittee a couple of weeks ago the Secretary of the Department of Veterans Affairs, Secretary Principi, and so I had an opportunity to ask him what he thought of the House Republican budget and what they had done to his Department. I also asked what he thought of the accusation that there was that much waste, fraud and abuse in his Department. He hesitated a moment and he said to me, ``Congressman, what we need at the Veterans Administration is an increase, not a decrease.'' He went on to cite the aging of the World War II veteran population and the kind of pressures that his Department is under to deliver quality health care.

Our colleague, the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee), indeed does have a veterans hospital in her district. So she is well-acquainted with the good work that they do in these facilities and also what these cuts might mean.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman and I would like to address our ranking Budget Committee member. Is there any way that our Republican friends, who voted for this motion to instruct conferees, saying quite specifically, do not touch these programs, is there any way that they can now consistently vote for the Republican budget resolution?

If the gentleman will yield, that is an important point. It was the Democratic budget that made the needed adjustments in veterans health care and other funding to meet the need. The President's budget fell far short of that. The veterans organizations made the case for much more adequate funding. And then our Republican friends in the House cut it even below the President's level.

Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will continue to yield, I want to thank the gentlewoman for her comments. We will be hearing in the remainder of this hour about many, many deficiencies and defects in this Republican budget, but I must say none of them match the sheer insensitivity and callousness of cutting veterans health care funding. It is just beyond belief that our Republican friends would attempt to do this, especially in a time of war.

They are driving the budget as a whole over the cliff while at the same time squeezing these vital programs. As we said, it is the worst of both worlds. I do appreciate the fine work of our ranking member on the Committee on the Budget, and particularly his effectiveness tonight in highlighting the differences, and believe me there is no comparison, between the alternative he put forward on this floor and the Republican budget.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 1559, Emergency Supplemental Appropriations for Fiscal Year 2003, including $62.5 billion for military operations in Iraq and the war on terrorism.

In the months and years ahead, questions will persist as to whether alternatives to a U.S. military invasion might have succeeded in removing the threat posed by Iraq's weapons program. And there are important debates still to come about the postwar program for rebuilding Iraq, the multilateral cooperation we must secure to ensure a postwar transition to democracy, and the efforts our nation must resume to bring Israelis and Palestinians back to the negotiating table. This Congress must hold the President and our country to these critical objectives.

But today, our task is more straightforward: we are here to give our courageous men and women in uniform the support and the resources they need to carry out their mission swiftly, effectively, and decisively. I have no doubt that that support, in the form of this supplemental appropriations bill, will be provided with near unanimity later today.

This bill also must address the protection of our citizens here at home. This Administration has made a total supplemental appropriation request of $74.7 billion. Homeland Security accounts for less than 6 percent, or only $4.2 billion, of this total. The Republican leadership of the Appropriations Committee has made significant improvements in the Administration's request and has courageously refused to cede the Congress's responsibility to apportion spending to the discretion of the President or Secretary of Defense on any other executive officer. But the bill still falls short of our minimal homeland security needs, and unfortunately, the leadership of this body has rejected constructive efforts from our side of the aisle to improve it.

Let me give two examples: port security and support for first responders. Although Congress and the Bush administration have taken important steps to improve airline safety, very little has been done to secure the 361 seaports around our nation that receive nearly 21,000 containers a day from hundreds of overseas ports. Maritime shipping moves 95 percent of non-North American U.S. trade.

Testifying before Congress last August, Robert Bonner, Commissioner of Customs and Border Protection, said, ``There is virtually no security for what is the primary system to transport global trade . . . The impact (of an attack) on global trade and the global economy could be immediate and devastating--all nations would be affected.'' Despite the vital role seaports play in linking America to the world, both economically and militarily, port vulnerability studies for the nation's 50 largest ports are not scheduled to be completed for five more years.

The Coast Guard estimates the 10-year cost for port security improvements at $4.4 billion, and $963 million for the first year alone. In this time of crisis, we cannot afford to delay this effort. Despite no request from the Administration, Congress has appropriated $400 million for grants to critical ports to conduct vulnerability assessments and make needed security improvements. The Democratic amendment provides $250 million more to better meet the security requirements of our ports.

Our first responders are our first line of defense--the ones who intercept terrorist activities and are first on the scene in the event of disaster, putting their life-saving skills to work.

I have traveled throughout my district meeting with local leaders and first responders. They tell me that they need equipment, training, and funding to meet the demands of their new responsibilities. Yet, they still have not received the funding that they have been promised; in fact, they are facing funding cuts in the President's 2004 budget.

The Democratic amendment provides critical support, first, in securing interoperable communications equipment. Incompatible communications equipment hinders the ability of our first responders to adequately respond to disasters and costs lives. Only 40 percent of fire departments can communicate with police or EMS personnel. The technology to obtain interoperable communication equipment exists now. DHS is developing national guidelines. The Democratic amendment provides $350 million to be directed immediately through grants to this effort in our effort to correct a universally accepted need.

Fire fighter grants were authorized at a level of $900 million for Fiscal Year 2003, but funded $150 million below its authorized level. The Democratic proposal makes up this shortfall

by providing the additional $150 million to the grant program. This additional money would make up shortages in basic needs such as portable radios, self-contained breathing devices, and map coordinate systems.

Not only major metropolitan areas but also smaller communities located near critical infrastructure are faced with an increased burden of security as a result of the ongoing high threat level. The Democratic proposal provides $300 million through the Office of Domestic Preparedness to help these communities fund the heightened security requirements they must address. This additional $300 million would provide a total of $3.5 billion to ODP for Fiscal Year 2003, which is equal to the Administrations original Fiscal Year 2003 budget request.

Mr. Chairman, members of this House understand the importance of providing our troops with the resources they need. We stand united behind them today, and we remain steadfast in our faith in them and our support of their mission.

However, it is also our duty protect all of our citizens and to provide funding to ensure homeland safety and security. It is in that respect that the bill before us falls short. Having been denied the opportunity to strengthen this bill today, we on the Democratic side will persevere in future appropriations efforts, hopefully with bipartisan support, to address urgent priorities in homeland defense.

Point of Order

Mr. Chairman, I rise today in opposition to the Republican budget and in support of the alternative budget being offered by my colleague from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt).

Mr. Chairman, the 10-year $5.6 trillion unified budget surplus projected less than 2 years ago is gone, completely gone, thanks in large part to the Bush tax cuts mainly benefiting upper-bracket taxpayers. Now the Republicans offer a budget with over a $2 trillion deficit for the same 10-year period, $4.4 trillion if we exclude the Social Security trust fund. That is a fiscal reversal of almost $8 trillion.

Unfortunately, in the face of the worst fiscal reversal in this Nation's history, the Republicans' response is to propose more of the same failed policies. Finding themselves in a hole, their message seems to be: just keep digging.

The Republicans' budget proposes $1.3 trillion in new tax cuts, every penny of it funded by increased government debt. The result, Mr. Chairman, is that the Republican budget would provide the worst of both worlds. We

would go over the cliff fiscally, while at the same time radically reducing money available for education, the environment, transportation, healthcare, and law enforcement.

At a time when our veterans are waiting 6 months for an appointment at VA hospitals, the Republican budget would cut compensation for service-connected disabilities and education benefits by $15 billion and veterans healthcare funding by another $14 billion over the next 10 years.

As the National Commander of the Disabled American Veterans said in a letter to Speaker Hastert, ``Has Congress no shame? Is there no honor left in the hallowed halls of our government that you choose to dishonor the sacrifices of our Nation's heroes and rob our programs, healthcare and disability compensation, to pay for tax cuts for the wealthy?''

The Republican budget not only fails to fund No Child Left Behind, the bipartisan education program enacted a year ago; it actually would require cuts in school lunch programs and in student loans. The Republicans mandate billions in cuts from appropriated health programs, but do not say where the ax would fall. From major disease research at the National Institutes of Health? From community health centers. There would be $2.5 billion in cuts required next year alone. From where?

The Republican budget does not even keep up with inflation in funding for homeland security. And what new money is proposed is largely offset by cuts in law enforcement programs on which our police and other first responders have depended in years past. The Democratic alternative provides $10 billion for the States immediately for homeland security, as provided in our economic stimulus plan. The Republican budget does not contain one dime of this funding.

Mr. Chairman, the Democratic budget has its priorities straight. A fast-acting and effective economic stimulus, a serious prescription drug plan, protection of veterans benefits, prudent investments in education and homeland security, and all of this with $821 billion less in deficits and debt than the Republican proposal. The Democratic alternative is realistic and responsible, fair and fiscally sound, and I urge colleagues to support it.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding, and congratulate him on a very fine and thoughtful statement.

Mr. Speaker, there is a good possibility that our country will be at war in Iraq before the month is out. The President held out little hope for any alternative approach to disarming Iraq at his press conference last Thursday. Yet a majority of the American people continue to urge for more time for inspections while we are facing something close to a diplomatic meltdown with major allies. A failure to secure allied support will have major consequences for every American. Our citizens alone will shoulder the financial burden of this war and its aftermath. Our troops will need to be kept indefinitely in post-war Iraq, our country alone as an occupying force will be the target of hatred, resentment and hostility from many in the Arab world, and America will risk losing our standing among the world's democracies as one who leads by moral suasion and example as well as by military might.

Pollsters here at home say they have rarely seen an issue where the public's reaction is more conditional or ambivalent. Tonight I want to suggest this is because the Bush administration has not answered basic questions about this war and has backed us into a situation where we seem to be choosing between equally unsatisfactory ways of dealing with what most agree is a deadly challenge.

The distinguished historian William Leuchtenburg citing Thomas Jefferson's maxim that ``great innovation should not be forced on slender majorities,'' recently contrasted George W. Bush's unilateralism to the behavior of previous wartime Presidents and found him ``unique in his defiance of so much international and domestic opinion.''

Many of our constituents believe that the full range and intensity of public opinion has not been visible or audible in Congress. One reason is that, by our vote of October 10 which gave the President an open- ended authorization for the use of force, this institution forfeited its coordinate decisionmaking role. Mr. Speaker, an up or down vote on a resolution authorizing force is at best a blunt instrument for checking the executive's constitutional dominance of foreign and military policy; but by granting unchecked authority months in advance, we made that instrument blunter yet.

Still, I believe the questions and the challenges to the President's approach

emanating from the Congress, and from Democratic Members in particular, have been more persistent and more consistent than most media accounts have acknowledged. It is true, Democrats were divided on final passage of the October resolution. And, in fact, this is not an issue on which a stance of absolute opposition is called for. We all understand Saddam Hussein to be a brutal dictator who is implacably hostile to our country and what we stand for. There is near unanimity in this body and in the international community that whatever capacity he has to make or use weapons of mass destruction must be ended.

But critical questions remain regarding alternative means to this end. Many Members of this body have raised these questions with increasing intensity in recent weeks; and unfortunately, the Bush administration has rarely provided satisfactory answers. What accounting do we have for the costs and risks of a military invasion? How are we to secure and maintain the support and engagement of our allies? Can Iraq be disarmed by means that do not divert us from or otherwise compromise equally or more urgent antiterrorist and diplomatic objectives? And do we have a credible plan for rebuilding and governing postwar Iraq, and have we secured the necessary international cooperation to ensure that this does not become a perceived U.S. occupation?

Administration officials, for example, have persistently refused to put a price tag on a U.S. invasion which, unlike the Gulf War, would have almost no financial backing from allies. The President's budget omits any reference to an Iraq war. With deficits for 2003 and 2004 already predicted to break historic records and $2 trillion slated to be added to the national debt by 2008, the addition of $80 billion to $200 billion in war costs could not come as welcome news. But it is an insult to this body and to the American people to submit a budget that absolutely fails to give an honest accounting, even within broad limits, of what those costs would be.

Daily dispatches from Korea leave little doubt that North Korea is taking advantage of our preoccupation with Iraq to dangerously ratchet up its nuclear program, and that the administration's diplomacy has not been up to this challenge.

And now we learn that the Bush administration, which, truth to tell, has never had its heart in Middle East peace-making, has rebuffed its so-called quartet partners, the European allies, Russia, and the United Nations, and insisted on yet another postponement in publishing the long-anticipated ``road map'' to an Israeli-Palestinian settlement. Why? Because of the crisis in Iraq. President Bush in December demanded that release of the timetable for reciprocal steps and negotiations be delayed until after the Israeli elections. Now he is insisting again that the effort be delayed, this time until after we deal with Iraq, seemingly thinking that victory in Iraq will be the key to solving this and most other problems in the Middle East.

As the New York Times editorialized last Sunday, ``The Bush administration has not been willing to risk any political capital in attempting to resolve the conflict between Israel and the Palestinians, but now the President is theorizing that invading Iraq will do the trick.''

The fact is that the festering Israeli-Palestinian conflict and the Bush administrations's failure to do anything about it represent an enormous obstacle to enlisting the support we need to achieve our objectives in the region, including the war on terrorism. That is certainly the way the Europeans see it; and the President's rebuff has further poisoned the atmosphere, even as the administration struggles to gain allied support for military action against Iraq. Among the angriest allies reportedly is Britain's Prime Minister Tony Blair, who for months has pleaded with President Bush to become more involved in Israeli-Palestinian peacemaking.

The administration's torpedoing of the Quartet initiative is also ill advised and ill timed with respect to Palestinian efforts at reform. It comes precisely at the time that President Arafat, under considerable pressure, has nominated Mahmoud Abbas, otherwise known as Abu Mazen, for the new position of Prime Minister of the Palestinian Authority. Abu Mazen, with whom the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Davis) and I had a cordial and useful visit in Ramallah in December, has been an outspoken critic of the militarization of the Palestinian uprising. How successful his appointment proves in reforming Palestinian governance will depend, among other things, on how much real authority he and his position are given. But President Bush could hardly have picked a more inauspicious time to throw cold water on the plans to get back to negotiations.

``There was a lot of dismay when the road map was put off before, and the dismay right now is even worse,'' one European diplomat told a New York Times reporter. ``Without hope, the power of extremists will only grow,'' added another.

Such, Mr. Speaker, are the costs of allowing Iraq to trump everything else on our antiterrorist and diplomatic agenda.

Mr. Speaker, the world welcomed the President's decision last fall to take the Iraq matter to the United Nations and, apparently, to give more extensive inspections and the supervised destruction of weapons a chance to work. But his rhetoric since that time has led many to believe that he has always regarded the inspections as foreordained to failure and war as the only recourse. Suspicions have deepened as administration statements about links between Iraq and al Qaeda have become less and less measured. Such statements have helped persuade some 42 percent of the American public that Saddam Hussein was personally responsible for the 9-11 World Trade Center attacks. But prospective allies examining the rationale for war have understandably been less impressed.

Inspections, of course, are a two-way street. They will never work without Iraq's willing cooperation; and that cooperation, as Mr. Blix and Mr. El Baradei have made clear, has been far from satisfactory. No matter how numerous or how skilled the inspectors are, they cannot find what amounts to needles in haystacks without honest and complete information regarding the weapons and the material which the Iraqis claim to have destroyed and the whereabouts of any remaining stockpiles.

Still, it does matter how we reach the conclusion that Iraq has effectively continued its defiance that the inspections have failed, and that war is the only remaining option. In fact, the report of the inspectors at the United Nations last Friday significantly undermined the American position, arguing that progress has, in fact, been made and discounting the dangers of any Iraqi nuclear program.

It is essential that the world know and face the fact, as the President said last Saturday, that Iraq is still violating the demands of the United Nations by refusing to disarm. But we undermine our own credibility when we scoff at the destruction of a stockpile of Al Samoud missiles as a matter of no consequence, or insist on a U.N. resolution with so short a time frame as to make it seem merely a pretext for war.

In fact, the U.N. inspectors themselves have specified the tasks remaining before them, and there is every reason to support the systematic pursuit of those objectives within a tight, but feasible, time frame. In the meantime, we must resist the notion that the alternatives confronting us are either to invade in the next few days or to appear to ``back down'' in a humiliating and dangerous fashion.

It is true that the massing of 235,000 troops has created a momentum of its own, and they cannot stay in place indefinitely. But the risks and the costs of an invasion undertaken in the face of major allied opposition remain, and we need to give full consideration to options that avoid either leaving Iraq's weapons in place or inexorably marching to war.

What might those options be? Michael Walzer has suggested intensifying what he calls the ``little war'' in which we are already engaged and challenging the French and the Germans and the Russians to become part of the solution. This could include extension of no-fly zones to cover the entire country, maintaining an embargo on strategic and dual-use materials,

and intensifying the program of inspections and weapons destruction under international control.

If such a program succeeded in destroying or neutralizing Iraq's weapons capability, the U.S. and the U.N. could credibly declare their mission accomplished, and most of the troops could return home, having created the military pressure that helped prompt compliance. I realize that at present, prospects for such an outcome appear to be fading. But when we are in an untenable position, contemplating outcomes that are equally unacceptable, we have an obligation to press in new directions.

Mr. Speaker, whatever course our President and our country take, we will give our men and women in uniform our full support, and I am confident that a unified Congress will provide whatever resources they need to succeed. I have been moved by the farewell ceremonies for National Guard units in my own district, and I have the utmost respect for the service and sacrifice that these men and women exemplify. The debates we have over foreign and military policy do not change that in the least. In fact, we owe them, and all of our citizens, this debate, so that we do not choose our Nation's course either impulsively or by default, but with due consideration of our Nation's interests and values, and consideration of how our vast power can be a force for what is just and right in the world. May God grant us wisdom and courage for the facing of these days.

Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.

The motion was agreed to; accordingly (at 10 o'clock and 57 minutes p.m.), under its previous order, the House adjourned until tomorrow, Wednesday, March 12, 2003, at 11 a.m.

Mr. Chairman, since the House last considered a ban on cloning, the National Academy of Sciences and the President's Council on Bioethics have both issued reports on the ethical and social questions raised by cloning. H.R. 534 does not reflect the recommendations of either body.

In moving to head off the morally unacceptable practice of cloning human beings, the National Academy of Sciences concluded that we must take great care not to limit the process of somatic cell nuclear transfer which holds considerable potential for developing new therapies and advancing biomedical knowledge.

The 17 members of the President's Council on Bioethics were divided on a final policy recommendation, but even the most conservative members of the council recommended only a 4-year moratorium on therapeutic cloning, not an outright ban as the Weldon bill would mandate.

There is a compelling moral case for therapeutic cloning based on our obligation to relieve human suffering and to affirm human health and life. The Greenwood substitute maintains the critical scientific and moral distinction between reproductive cloning, which we all agree should be banned, and therapeutic cloning which has tremendous potential for human benefit.

Vote against H.R. 534 and for the Greenwood substitute.