Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, today I rise to honor the Greek people and their successful struggle for independence from Ottoman occupation that began nearly 182 years ago. Greek Independence Day has special symbolic resonance for Americans. Our forefathers founded our democratic system of government on the principles of popular representation introduced to this world by the ancient Athenians.

Our word democracy is, in fact, of Greek derivation and literally translates as people (``demo'') rule (``kratos''). The ancient Greek experiment with democracy, however, was a visionary aberration that was centuries ahead of its time. Democracy did not last long in Ancient Greece as the fist of empires--Roman, Byzantine, and Ottoman--silenced democratic yearnings for nearly two millennia.

Although democracy temporarily disappeared, the Greeks continued to thrive and prosper. As the Roman Empire expanded in the early centuries after the birth of Christ, the Greek peoples dominated the eastern half of the Roman Empire, known as Byzantium, and it was the Greek city of Constantinople where the Roman emperor Constantine converted himself and the entire Roman Empire to Christianity.

After the fall of Rome in 476 AD, the Greek-led Byzantine Empire emerged as a potent force in the world and protectorate of Christian Orthodoxy. The Greeks remained strong and independent until the Central Asian Ottomans crushed the Byzantine armies and conquered the spiritual capital of the Byzantine world at Constantinople in 1453.

The victory of the Ottomans cast the Greek speaking peoples into more than four hundred years of occupation. But even while under the yoke of Ottoman rule, the Greeks were an impressive force. As successful and educated merchants, many thrived in the Ottoman middle class and bolstered the Ottoman economy.

Still, the Greeks were not meant to be subject peoples and they began to oppose the imperial policies of the Ottoman government. Greeks, many of whom were educated in the universities of the West, began to adopt revolutionary ideas from France, Great Britain, and the United States. The concepts of the nation-state, self-determination, and liberal democracy found their ways into the Greek villages and cities from Athens to Constantinople.

On March 25, 1821, Greek patriots from the southern tip of the Peloponnese to the northern outskirts of Macedonia finally rebuked the yoke of the Ottomans and declared the independence of the Greek people from subjugation. At first, the Hellenic fighters met with violent failure, but their just cause ignited the imaginations of their people and of scores of Western philhellenes, such as the English poet Lord Byron, who left their homelands to fight and die with the Greeks for their liberation.

The United States was never far from the minds of the revolutionary Greeks, nor was the struggle of the Greeks unnoticed by Americans. As Greek revolutionary commander Petros Mavromichalis, one of the founders of the modern Greek state, said to the citizens of the United States in 1821, ``It is in your land that liberty has fixed her abode and . . . in imitating you, we shall imitate our ancestors and be thought worthy of them if we succeed in resembling you.''

By 1833, the Greeks had secured independence and with it a place in history as the first of the subjugated peoples in Europe to overthrow their Ottoman masters.

As the Greek nation developed and grew, it emerged as a stalwart ally of the United States. The Greek people fought alongside the American and Allied forces in both of the world wars of the twentieth century. The Greeks again took up arms against their Ottoman foes in the First World War and then handed the Axis powers their first defeat in World War II when the Greek army pushed back the forces of Mussolini. Soon after, however, they would suffer through a long and painful Nazi occupation.

After World War II, Greece became an instrumental member of the NATO alliance. Greece's strategic location made it a vital buffer between the Western Democratic world and Soviet Communism.

Over the last thirty years, Greece has made major strides forward for its people. In 1974, Konstantine Karamanlis finally restored democracy to Greece, bringing representative government back to its birthplace. Greece became a member of the European Community and the powerful European Union.

Today, Greece continues to move in the right direction thanks to the enlightened leadership of Prime Minister Costas Simitas. Greece currently has the honor of holding the European Union's rotating Presidency. It is working to promote peace and stability in Europe and the Middle East during challenging times. Greece and its Foreign Minister George Papandreou continue aggressive efforts to end generations of strained relations between Turkey and Greece, including actively promoting a settlement on Cyprus and helping to promote Turkey's bid for EU membership. Greece understands that a democratic Turkey belonging to the EU would serve the interests of Greece, Turkey, and all of Europe.

Economically, Greece is prospering and recently became a member of the European Monetary Union. Next year, the Olympics will finally return to their birthplace in Greece where athletes and spectators from around the world will experience the warmth of Greek hospitality.

Strategically, Greece remains important, especially to the United States. It is a force of stability in the volatile Balkans where it continues to promote open markets and democracy. The Greek government is also united with the United States in its war on terrorism. Over the last year Greek law enforcement and intelligence services have worked closely with U.S. authorities to shut down the November 17th terrorist group and its terrorist allies in Greece. Greece has made major arrests and has begun prosecuting terrorist leaders for their crimes.

I cannot overstate the importance of strong ties between Greece and the United States. As an American citizen who believes firmly in the principles of democracy and as a representative of thousands of Greek- Americans that live in Central New Jersey, I rise today in humble recognition of Greek Independence Day.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to vote to support our brave armed forces. I will vote for this resolution. My thoughts and prayers are with the men and women in uniform who are serving our country in the Persian Gulf and elsewhere. They will, without doubt, perform admirably. While I am disappointed that this resolution contains dubious and politically opportunistic language regarding Iraq and the war on terrorism, that cannot stop me from endorsing the valor and dedication of our troops. Although I remain concerned that this war will make our country less instead of more safe, I deeply respect the personal sacrifice and commitment of our armed forces. Our democracy permits and even encourages disagreement, but it cannot tolerate disrespect towards our men and women in uniform.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to talk further about the budget. Much has been said, and I will not go over it, that this budget, as we now have our thoughts and prayers with our troops overseas, does not even include any mention of the war, of the cost of the war. It does not include funding for first responders adequately. It does not adequately fund education and special education. It would force cuts to VA benefits.

But let me just address two matters that I think really should be underscored that are failings in this budget. One has to do with Medicare.

I have heard Members on both sides of the aisle speak passionately about the need for prescription medicine coverage, yet the majority's budget resolution contains only $28 billion in new spending, when the lowest estimates for this kind of funding are about $400 billion. In other words, if this is going to happen, it would pull money not out of thin air, but it would pull money out of Medicare, other Medicare programs and out of Medicaid spending. That will not work.

In the area of research and development, our investment in science, research and development is a necessary investment to provide the growth in productivity that is required, that is really postulated for this budget resolution. That growth will not come unless we invest in research and development.

NIH funding, which was previously on a doubling path, the majority seems to think little of the achievements of the NIH researchers in hemophilia, muscular dystrophy, Alzheimer's and all of these other areas. Their budget reduces appropriated health programs by almost 5 percent in 2004.

With the looming war in Iraq, with the continued instability in the Middle East, with the threat of global climate change, you would think we would be increasing our funding for research in carbon reduction in fuels, but the funding for the Department of Energy's Office of Science remains flat. So, these are major shortcomings in the budget.

I see my friend from New York on his feet, and I would be pleased to yield to the gentleman.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise before the House today to question the merits of the mission this Administration will soon ask the brave men and women of our armed forces to undertake. I am sure that our servicemen and women will perform admirably and we all hope they will achieve their objectives quickly and with minimal loss of life, but my reservations about this approaching war remain as strong today as they have ever been.

Although I agree with the President that we must eliminate the threat posed by Saddam Hussein and his weapons of mass destruction, I still believe it is at the least premature, and more likely contrary to our national interest, to launch a military attack against Iraq now. I firmly believe that we could better achieve our objectives in Iraq by building a strong international coalition capable of not only winning the war, but also capable of winning the peace.

When thinking about whether or not we should go to war against Iraq, I find myself returning repeatedly to one basic question. Will American-led military action against Iraq improve the security of the American people against the threat of terrorism and weapons of mass destruction? I believe the answer is no.

I remain concerned that an immediate attack on Iraq would significantly rise the chance of terrorism here at home, while overseas I fear that a cornered Saddam Hussein would release his arsenal of chemical, biological, and possible nuclear weapons on American soldiers or on his neighbors in the region, including Israel. He could also pass them on to terrorists and speed their arrival to American shores. But it is not fear of danger to America that gives us pause. Americans are brave enough to face danger if necessary. However, there is no evidence I have seen either in classified or public briefings that convinces me that this war is necessary now.

Furthermore, even if we prosecute a successful war, which I have no doubt our brave men and women in uniform would, I have questions about our ability to win the post-war peace. A war and subsequent American occupation of Iraq would likely send a destabilizing shockwave throughout the Middle East and ignite violent anti-Americansim, giving rise to future threats to our national security. While I have no doubt that we would successfully depose Saddam Hussein, I am concerned that the act of extinguishing Saddam would inflame, rather than diminish, the terrorist threat to the United States. The ensuring anti-American sentiment could reinvigorate the terrorists' pursuit of the loose nuclear weapons in the former Soviet Union--a greater threat than Iraq, I might add, one that America has largely neglected.

We can and should take the lead in eliminating the threat posed by Saddam Hussein, but this Administration has not made a convincing case to the world that war is necessary. Instead, it has used aggressive rhetoric to wage a diplomatic war on our allies that is straining our international relationships and alienating America from the world. While I do not believe that we need the permission of our allies to take action, I do believe that we need their partnership to be successful in the long run.

In order to be successful, we must lead the world community. But leadership is not simply about acting boldly--it means bringing along others to act boldly with you. We need to disarm and dismantle Saddam's arsenal, but we should do so with the support of the world. This Administration, however, has failed to earn the support of our allies. And so, in place of leadership, we have questions and ultimately instability.

This Administration has yet to explain how military action make Americans more safe, not less. It has also failed to explain to the American public what our responsibilities would be in a post-Saddam Iraq. How will we guarantee the security of our soldiers and the Iraqi people? How will we guarantee the success of a democratic transition? How many hundreds of billions of dollars would it cost to rebuild Iraq?

If the President has determined that military action against Iraq is necessary, I request that he explain first to a joint session of Congress exactly how a war could affect our other international interests, what our plan is for achieving a long-term stabilization of post-conflict Iraq, and approximately how much military action and post-war reconstruction would likely cost. The American people deserve to know the answers to these questions.

Americans are willing to pay any price and bear any burden to advance the American ideals of liberty, equality and peace. However, if a war is not deemed necessary, if it is not indeed a last resort, then the price in dollars and blood is too great.

Since it now appears that arguments against the war are too late, we must turn our attention to working with other countries diplomatically and to prosecuting the war as humanely as possible so that we will be able to pick up the pieces when the fighting is over.

Mr. Speaker, I don't know all of the reasons why this bill was pulled from the suspension calendar today. But I hope it will be re-scheduled for our consideration soon. I support passage of this bill sponsored by my New Jersey colleague, Congressman Mike Ferguson. It will re-authorize the important work of the National Center on Birth Defects and Developmental Disabilities (NCBDDD) within the Centers for Disease Control (CDC). Statutory authorization for this particular national center expired at the end of Fiscal Year 2002.

But at the same time, I also want to underscore my concern that officials of the CDC and the National Center on Birth Defects do not currently intend to continue approximately $1 million in annual funding beyond Fiscal Year 2003 for the New Jersey Center for Birth Defects Research and Prevention, which is located in the City of Trenton. This would be very short-sighted and inefficient.

The New Jersey Center is one of eight such state centers that CDC established in 1997, at the direction of Congress. Since then, they have been hard at work developing a statewide registry and database on the incidence of birth defects and linking them to new research. Continuing this important work will help us determine what factors might be causing birth defects. It could yield invaluable insights into whether exposure to certain environmental hazards, for example, contributes to birth defects.

Sadly, our nation is now confronting huge budget deficits for years to come. But the CDC and the National Center on Birth Defects should build upon their initial five-year investment and continue their modest funding for all of the state efforts already compiling this vital information to help determine what causes birth defects.

Doing all we can to prevent birth defects and to learn more about what contributes to them is not a partisan issue. Accordingly, I look forward to working with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to sustain federal support for New Jersey and other states that have taken the lead in developing this tracking data, while also enabling more states to do so.

Mr. Speaker, on April 26, 2003, more than 1,200 students from across the country will compete in the national finals of the We the People: The Citizen and the Constitution program in Washington, DC. This program is the most extensive educational program in the country, developed specifically to educate young students about the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. The We the People program, administered by the Center for Civic Education, is funded by the U.S. Department of Education by act of Congress.

I am proud to announce that the class from East Brunswick High School will represent the state of New Jersey in the program's finals. These students have worked conscientiously to reach the national finals by participating at local and statewide competitions. In the past fifteen years, these young scholars have won the state competition fourteen times, an accomplishment that should not go unnoticed. Through their experience, they have gained a deep knowledge and understanding of fundamental principles and values of our constitutional democracy. It is a great honor that students from the 12th District in New Jersey have shown such dedication and interest in our nation's government.

The three-day We the People national competition is modeled after hearings in the United States Congress. The hearings consist of oral presentations by high school students before a panel of adult judges on constitutional topics. The students are given an opportunity to demonstrate their knowledge while they evaluate, take, and defend positions on relevant historical and contemporary issues. Their testimony is followed by a period of challenging questions by the judges who probe the students' depth of understanding and ability to apply their constitutional knowledge.

The We the People program provides curricular materials at upper elementary, middle and high school levels. The curriculum not only enhances students' appreciation of the institutions of American constitutional democracy, it also helps them identify the contemporary relevance of the Constitution and Bill of Rights. Critical thinking exercises, problem-solving activities, and cooperative learning techniques help develop participatory skills necessary to become active, responsible citizens.

The class from East Brunswick High School is currently preparing for their participation in the national competition in Washington, DC. It is inspiring to see these young people advocate the fundamental ideals and principles of our government, ideas that identify us as a people and bind us together as a nation. It is important for future generations to understand the values and principles fundamental to our endeavor to preserve and realize the promise of our constitutional democracy. I wish these young ``constitutional experts'' the best of luck at the We the People national finals and continued success in their endeavors.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of full funding of the Violence Against Women Act. This law has fostered countless initiatives that have brought millions of dollars to shelters, increased resources for law enforcement, expanded the National Domestic Violence Hotline, and bolstered the prosecution of child abuse, sexual assault, and domestic violence cases.

These programs and services are invaluable. U.S. Department of Justice statistics indicate that domestic violence has decreased by 49% since VAWA went into effect. They also reaffirm that full funding for VAWA is well worth the investment. It is estimated that the $1.6 billion spent on VAWA programs during the first six years after its enactment saved government coffers $14.8 billion in medical, legal, workplace and other social costs, not to mention saving many lives.

Unfortunately, state budget crises and decreases in federal funding are threatening these vital programs and services. President Bush's budget request for FY 2004 would cut funding for VAWA programs and services by $141.6 million in FY 2004 from the previously authorized level of $692.5 million.

Our nation must renew our commitment to ending all forms of domestic violence. I urge

my colleagues to appropriate full funding to fulfill the mission of the Violence Against Women Act.

Mr. Speaker, on April 26, 2003, more than 1200 students from across the country will compete in the national finals of the We the People: The Citizen and the Constitution program in Washington, D.C. This program is the most extensive educational program in the country, developed specifically to educate young students about the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. The We the People program, administered by the Center for Civic Education, is funded by the U.S. Department of Education by act of Congress.

I am proud to announce that the class from East Brunswick High School will represent the state of New Jersey in the program's finals. These students have worked conscientiously to reach the national finals by participating at local and statewide competitions. In the past fifteen years, these young scholars have won the state competition fourteen times, an accomplishment that should not go unnoticed. Through their experience, they have gained a deep knowledge and understanding of fundamental principles and values of our constitutional democracy. It is a great honor that students from the 12th District in New Jersey have shown such dedication and interest in our nation's government.

The three-day We the People national competition is modeled after hearings in the United States Congress. The hearings consist of oral presentations by high school students before a panel of adult judges on constitutional topics. The students are given an opportunity to demonstrate their knowledge while they evaluate, take, and defend positions on relevant historical and contemporary issues. Their testimony is followed by a period of challenging questions by the judges who probe the students' depth of understanding and ability to apply their constitutional knowledge.

The We the People program provides curricular materials at upper elementary, middle and high school levels. The curriculum not only enhances students' appreciation of the institutions of American constitutional democracy, it also helps them identify the contemporary relevance of the Constitution and Bill of Rights. Critical thinking exercises, problem-solving activities, and cooperative learning techniques help develop participatory skills necessary to become active, responsible citizens.

The class from East Brunswick High School is currently preparing for their participation in the national competition in Washington, D.C. It is inspiring to see these young people advocate the fundamental ideals and principles of our government, ideas that identify us as a people and bind us together as a nation. It is important for future generations to understand

the values and principles fundamental to our endeavor to preserve and realize the promise of our constitutional democracy. I wish these young ``constitutional experts'' the best of luck at the We the People national finals and continued success in their endeavors.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of full funding of the Violence Against Women Act. This law fostered countless initiatives that have brought millions of dollars to shelters, increased resources for law enforcement, expanded the National Domestic Violence Hotline, and bolstered the prosecution of child abuse, sexual assault, and domestic violence cases.

These programs and services are invaluable. U.S. Department of Justice statistics indicate that domestic violence has decreased by 49 percent since VAWA went into effect. They also reaffirm that full funding for VAWA is well worth the investment. It is estimated that the $1.6 billion spent on VAWA programs during the first six years after its enactment saved government coffers $14.8 billion in medical, legal, workplace and other social costs, not to mention saving many lives.

Unfortunately, state budget crises and decreases in federal funding are threatening these vital programs and services. President Bush's budget request for FY 2004 would cut funding for VAWA programs and services by $141.6 million in FY 2004 from the previously authorized level of $692.5 million.

Our Nation must renew our commitment to ending all forms of domestic violence. I urge my colleagues to appropriate fall funding to fulfill the mission of the Violence Against Women Act.

Mr. Speaker, as an educator and avid reader, it's always a special pleasure to visit a library or a museum. Libraries safeguard our freedom and keep democracy healthy. Museums and libraries preserve the past and offer brighter futures to all of us. They are true community assets. That is why I was pleased to be an original cosponsor of H.R. 13, the Museum and Library Services Act.

Libraries are often referred to as the ``People's University.'' It is a fitting name.

Libraries provide all of us with free access to a fabulous wealth of information. In this increasingly technology-driven society, they speak directly to what we call the Digital Divide. A recent survey by the Department of Commerce found that our libraries are the No. 1 point of access for those who do not have Internet access at home or at work. Today, 90 percent of public libraries have some kind of Internet connection.

Research also shows us that Americans visit libraries 3.5 billion times each year; 1.6 billion items are borrowed annually from public libraries; and research librarians answer 7 million questions every week.

Clearly libraries are responding not only to the daunting challenges of the Information Age and to the changing needs of our communities, but they are continuing to serve all of their traditional roles as well.

Libraries are also true community centers. They create environments where students can do their homework, townspeople can gather, families can interact, seniors can learn new skills, and job seekers can find advice. They are forums building partnerships, linking with everyone from garden clubs to Head Start programs to extend their reach throughout our communities.

Throughout our country, libraries serve as, the catalyst for economic revitalization, bringing together our communities civic and social leaders. They provide reading material for people of all ages by sending books into maternity wards, setting up reading stations in pediatrician's offices, developing teen centers, and establishing mobile book carts in nursing homes and senior centers.

I am currently observing the improvements at my own Princeton public library that are traceable to this authorization bill. The library is in the process of constructing a state of the art library security, inventory, and circulation system that will allow library users to automatically check in and check out books.

Let me cite some other examples of how our local libraries are helping people all across the 12th District of New Jersey. The South Brunswick Public Library has been fortunate to receive funding from the Library Services and Technology Act (LSTA) grants. Their Computer Training Center, established in part by these funds serves hundreds of people each week. The center not only provides free Internet access, but it provides the training many people need to use the Internet on their own.

Robert Weidlich of Kendall Park, NJ, turned to the library when he began suffering chronic back pain brought about by hunching over a microscope all day, conducting medical research in a nearby company. He wanted to find the internal source of his pain, which his doctors had not been able to do. At the library, staff helped Weidlich use the library's collections and electronic sources to tap into the medical sources and the latest research from all over the world. He became a regular at the computer center, spending many hours logged on the Internet to learn about disorders of the spinal cord and back. As a result of his research, he located the unusual source of his pain--a damaged ligament in the lumbar region of his back. With his new understanding of the problem, he was able to invent ways to mechanically support his back so that he could go on with his life.

Peter Gao of Monmouth Junction, gleefully reported that he was able to find a new job at the post office because of the assistance the library provided in his job search when he recently lost his programming position at Dow Jones.

Greta Ji passed the Yale law school tests with a top score, thanks to the materials and computer access that she obtained through the library.

Dan Guerra, a family lawyer, regularly uses the library in his research, and especially finds the databases helpful.

Finally, the Investments Club utilizes all our resources to keep abreast of the latest market developments. None of the Club members have computers at home, nor could they individually afford the financial databases they like to check at their weekly meetings. Senior citizens like Leona Bouthwell, can now regularly check her investments and look up consumer information.

These are examples of how important libraries are to me and millions of other Americans. Mr. Speaker, Carl Rowan, a noted journalist, once said, ``The library is the temple of learning, and learning has liberated more people than all the wars in history.''

I look forward to the passage of H.R. 13 the Museum and Library Services Act.

Mr. Speaker, to provide for the common defense of our Nation is a constitutional duty here in Congress, and we have no responsibility more serious than to look after the security of the people of America, and to do it in a way that honors and protects the men and women who defend our security. We certainly recognize their courage, their sacrifice and their patriotism.

I am concerned that the American-led war upon which we are about to launch, followed by an American military occupation, would make Americans here at home less secure, not more. With that in mind, I would like to refer to a resolution introduced by the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Brown) and cosponsored by a number of others of us. The joint resolution has a number of whereas clauses, including that whereas Saddam Hussein is a repressive dictator who has demonstrated through his own actions, including the invasion of Kuwait and the oppression of the Iraqi people, that it is necessary for the international community to ensure his conduct is in accordance with international law.

And whereas on September 12, 2002, President Bush committed the United States to ``work with the United Nations Security Council to meet our common challenge'', posed by Iraq and to, ``work for the necessary resolutions'' while also making clear that, ``the Security Council resolutions will be enforced and that the just demands of peace and security will be met or action will be unavoidable;'' . . .

And whereas Congress recognizes the efforts of the President to obtain unanimous approval for United Nations Security Council resolution 1441 which affords Iraq, ``a final opportunity to comply with its disarmament obligations under relevant resolutions of the Council.''

And following various other whereas clauses, we call upon the President to

report to Congress prior to using U.S. Armed Forces against Iraq pursuant to section 3(a) of the Authorization for the Use of Military Force, to report on the following:

1. A determination that further diplomatic and other peaceful means will not adequately protect the national security of the United States against the threat posed by Iraq. In other words, that war is, indeed, a last resort.

2. A full accounting of the implications, both positive and negative, of initiating military action against Iraq in regard to homeland security, the war on terrorism, regional stability in the Middle East, the Middle East peace process, and the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. In other words, to understand the implications that an invasion of Iraq would have for our other international interests, including the combat against terrorism and the regional stability in the Middle East.

3. The steps the United States and its allies will take to ensure that any and all weapons of mass destruction and the related knowledge base will be safeguarded from dispersal to other rogue states and international terrorist organizations. In other words, to see that the risk of use of weapons of mass destruction would actually be reduced, not increased, by an invasion of Iraq. As an aside, I might comment, the serious problem that is created by our lowering the threshold for the use of nuclear weapons in that area.

4. The United States' plan for achieving long-term social, economic and political stabilization of a post-conflict Iraq, including a plan to provide humanitarian assistance to the Iraqi people and to ensure respect of their human rights as well as bringing to justice the individuals responsible for serious violations of international humanitarian and human rights law committed in Iraq.

5. The nature and extent of the international support for military action against Iraq and the impact of military action against Iraq on allied support for the broader war on terrorism. In other words, it is not just a matter of ``you're either with us or against us'' but how does this help us work together to accomplish our goals around the world now and in the future.

6. The steps the United States and its allies will take to protect United States soldiers, allied forces and Iraqi civilians from any known or suspected environmental hazards, associated with battlefield agents.

7. An estimate of the full costs including humanitarian aid in light of possible refugee flows, reconstructing Iraq, and securing political stability in the region, and

8. The anticipated short and long-term effects of military action on the economy and the Federal budget.

We end by saying it is the sense of Congress that the report required by subsection (a) should be delivered by the President in the form of a public address to a joint session of Congress. I think with this kind of report, that is satisfactory on all these points, our men and women in uniform will have everything they need to defend the security of the American people. Without such a report I must conclude that it is at least premature, or more likely contrary to our national interest, the fight against terrorism, to our ability to lead the world, to launch a military attack against Iraq now.

Mr. Chairman, as a scientist, I must say extreme conviction seems to be crowding out understanding here today. I would like to cut through the scientific rhetoric of this biomedical research technique and discuss the real progress in this area. But in the limited time available, let me draw the choice as sharply as possible.

Down one road we see potential therapeutic cloning to help cure diseases from Parkinson's to Alzheimer's; down the other road we see unprecedented criminalization of scientific research.

Now, therapeutic cloning is not some far-out technique conducted on the fringe of the scientific community. These researchers are not crazed Dr. Frankensteins. They are people like our neighbors, highly ethical who are working hard to save lives, to relieve suffering, to improve the quality of life. Let us not make them criminals.

Now, to draw the distinction here, particularly referring to my colleague's reference to a slippery slope, in vitro fertilization has been hailed as a miracle of modern science allowing millions of American couples to conceive. However, by necessity of the in vitro fertilization procedure, some human embryos are created that will not be given the chance to develop into babies. Are we to say here today that we want to outlaw in vitro fertilization? IVF is not only accepted, it is enthusiastically embraced. It is a God send for millions of families. Yes, millions of families. Therapeutic cloning is no more ethically objectionable than IVF.

Now, I asked the proponents of this bill, do you question the ethics of the parents of those million Americans alive today through the miracle of IVF? They may, but let us not command their beliefs to become law.

The majority of my constituents, the majority of Americans, all scientific researchers I know, agree that human reproductive cloning would be unsafe, unethical, and should not be allowed. The Greenwood substitute is every bit as effective as H.R. 534 in keeping scientists from creating genetic duplicates of people. Regardless of which bill is passed today, millions of human embryos will be created.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the underlying bill and in support of the Cardin substitute and in outrage for the circumvention of the committee process.

Mr. Chairman, last year in the Education and the Workforce Committee, we sat down and discussed TANF reauthorization extensively. We had several days' worth of hearings at both the committee and subcommittee level before a two-day markup in full committee. Two other committees-- Ways and Means and Energy and Commerce--worked on the bill at the same time. Then the leadership of the majority party brought the bill to the floor, they only allowed two hours of debate and no amendments were permitted. This was an egregious example of the political partisanship and poor procedure that has dominated the House in recent years. But this year, the situation is even worse; no committees looked at the bill. The entire committee process was ignored, and again we have is no opportunity for real debate or amendment on the floor.

Mr. Chairman, I don't know if some of my colleagues have noticed, but since we last looked at TANF reauthorization, we've had an election. Aren't the new members of this body entitled to hear more this bill? Aren't they entitled to their say in committee? We've also seen our economic situation get worse last year. Unemployment has gone up. Wouldn't it be a good idea for the committees to discuss the effects of these factors? Is it wise to ignore any potential new research that may have been conducted?

I'm not going to speculate as to why the leadership found it necessary to circumvent the committee process. But this is a dangerous precedent to set, and we should do more than give a cursory examination when we reauthorize the program providing assistance to the neediest of our families.

Not only should we have looked at this bill in committees, but we should also be focusing more on trying to find the facts behind temporary assistance in this country. Welfare reform is still an experiment in progress. We still do not know what happens to people who leave the welfare rolls. Are they working? Are the unemployed? Are they simply off the rolls? What factors contribute to the ability of people to comply with TANF work requirements? No one knows for sure.

That's why as we go through this reauthorization process, it is vitally important that we improve the research and data reporting in TANF. In order to make informed decisions on the directions that TANF and CCDBG should take we need more information on the issue.

I believe that while maintaining pressure on the states to move people from welfare to work, the renewed TANF should also help families move up the job and income ladders. We should eliminate the caseload reduction credit and phase in an employment credit. For each 1% of the caseload that obtains employment, the work participation rate would be reduced by 1%. In addition, there would be extra credit for recipients who obtain higher paying jobs. Another way of assisting families in moving up the income ladder is giving people the tools to get a good job with the potential for advancement, not a dead-end make-work job. We need to provide the training for individuals trying to get jobs. This is how we can ensure that families will not return to the welfare rolls.

We must also give parents what they need to achieve the work requirements. First and foremost, this means providing funding for quality childcare. A parent will not make a reliable employee if he or she is always concerns about the quality of their child's care, or cannot get childcare at all. If welfare recipients are going to get real jobs that uplift their self-sufficiency and if children are going to have the care and attention they need to grow positively, we must need good childcare programs.

Mr. Chairman, all these issues could have been brought up in committee. All of them could have been considered during markup or addressed by witnesses during hearings. But we never got the chance. And while I laud the goal of providing TANF recipients with the resources to move from welfare to work. I cannot support this bill and I cannot condone the circumvention of the legislative process.

Mr. Speaker, I will vote for final passage of the FY 03 Omnibus Bill, but I will hold my nose as I do so.

Let me first note one positive aspect of the omnibus--the increase in Medicare provider payments. I'm very pleased that the conferees approved a 1.6 percent increase this year, to prevent the drastic payment cuts that threatened seniors' access to healthcare.

But all is not well, unfortunately. I believe, as do so many of my colleagues, that these are unusual and dangerous times that require urgent action. We cannot continue to leave this government limping along with frozen budgets, trying to meet the challenges of a new world. So I find myself compelled to vote for this bill, to protect my constituents and the people of the United States. Our federal agencies need to have appropriate funding to deal with the threats and challenges of the world as we see it today.

Mr. Speaker, the House leadership did not think it necessary to give our local first responders the funding they need to deal with emergencies. We've heard so much rhetoric about the need for this country to be prepared for the dangers around us. So why have we shortchanged the police, firefighters, and emergency medical personnel who are so crucial to these preparedness efforts? I voted for the motion to recommit because it added $500 million above the conference- approved levels for training, equipment, and assistance for first responders.

What I also cannot condone is the senseless assault on our environment contained in this bill, including language that removes oversight of public land management in areas like the Tongass National Forest. I also cannot condone a decrease in funding for conservation programs, which are so crucial as we consider how to end our dependence on foreign oil.

These are only two of the things I can find wrong in this bill, because we had less than one day to work on it. Who knows what else have been slipped in? I will vote for this bill, Mr. Speaker, but I do so with great reservation.

Madam Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me this time, and I concur with the remarks of my colleague from New Jersey who just spoke. I rise in support of H.R. 395, the Do-Not-Call Implementation Act; and I would like to salute Chairman Tauzin and Ranking Member Dingell for introducing what my colleagues will tell you, and my constituents especially will tell you, is important legislation. I cannot count the number of e-mails, phone calls, and letters I receive from constituents, many of them irate, complaining about telemarketing. The residents of my district have pleaded with me to do something so that they can have a peaceful family dinner, not interrupted by credit card solicitations or the latest condominium offerings on some tropical locale. I know what they are talking about, because frequently my dinner is interrupted by these calls, too. They have been described as nuisances, extremely annoying, and by stronger language.

We should not stop companies from developing and using innovative ways to sell their products and services, but there is little question that this kind of telemarketing is out of hand. It has become a form of harassment. Just as citizens have the right to tell door-to-door solicitors to leave their property, Americans should have the right to tell telemarketers to stop calling and to make it happen.

The Do-Not-Call Implementation Act will be widely appreciated. It does not prohibit telemarketing. It does not stop companies from using phone solicitation to sell legitimate products and services. It empowers individuals by creating a realistic and enforceable way for them to get their names off telemarketing lists.

We have had do-not-call lists on the books, legislation, for more than a decade. But when Congress first mandated such lists, the FCC chose to leave creation and maintenance up to individual businesses, making enforcement next to impossible. That is why the Do-Not-Call Implementation Act is a great step forward in creating a real nationwide do-not-call list.

Finally, Madam Speaker, people will be able to opt out of telemarketing by registering online or making a simple phone call. Telemarketers will face serious consequences for noncompliance. I think a fine of $11,000, up to that amount, for each call will get their attention. It is about time that the Federal Government protect the citizens from this unwanted harassment. After we are successful in implementing this, I hope we will turn our attention to electronic mail spam.