Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, first, I want to join in the words of the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos) regarding our colleague from Illinois. His eloquence and his civility mean a great deal to us, both when we agree with him and when we do not. The gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde) has, I think, set a standard for everyone to follow in discussion of issues on the floor of the United States House and helps us be proud that we are Members of this institution.

I also want to join with the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde) in his comments, as well as the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos), regarding this issue, and also with what the gentleman from Illinois had to say about the present and future of Ukraine. As we look back, it is important also that we look forward, and the challenge before Ukraine today is an important one, both their steps forward and sometimes backward. We all join in hoping that the steps forward will increase as Ukraine joins fully the ranks of the democratic nations of this globe. They have an important role to play.

But we also have to look back because if we do not look back, we will not effectively face the future. So I rise today, Mr. Speaker, to join my colleagues in commemorating the 70th anniversary of the tragedy of the Ukrainian famine of 1932-33. This resolution recalls the incredible suffering and loss sustained by the Ukrainian people, and others, as the gentleman from Illinois pointed out, as a result of intentional policies implemented by the former Soviet Union which led to the deaths of at least 7 million people. Even today, the magnitude and gravity of this atrocity remains unknown to too many in the world. And this is why every 5 years, at least, we introduce a resolution to mark the anniversary.

As mentioned, more than 7 million women, men, and children died; and it was not because of drought or pestilence or crop failure. It was because of the deliberate policies of Joseph Stalin and other leaders in the Soviet Union. The Soviet Government ruthlessly employed policies of forced collectivization and grain seizures to suppress and politically neutralize Ukrainian aspirations for independence. Red Army soldiers performed systematic house-to-house searches where every scrap of food was taken. Grain silos were guarded by military troops, and police denied access to even those who had harvested the grain in the immediate area, while trains loaded with food left that area.

The seizures were so harsh that villages were often left with no food for their citizens, making the crisis even worse. Soviet authorities ordered the borders of Ukraine sealed to prevent anyone from escaping the famine and preventing any international food aid from providing relief to the starving. Witnesses spoke of Ukrainians eating bark, weeds, and even insects to survive.

Observing the commemoration of this anniversary is significant because Stalin and his closest associates concealed the artificially created famine for decades. In the aftermath of the collapse of the Soviet Union, the world has learned more and more about the harsh reality of life under a totalitarian regime, and the truth surrounding this atrocity has been revealed.

We gained greater knowledge after the congressionally mandated U.S. Commission on the Ukraine Famine began its work in 1985 to ``provide the American public with a better understanding of the Soviet system by revealing the Soviet role in the famine.''

I had a chance recently to go back and read a summary of that report, and I urge my colleagues to do likewise. That commission issued its final report in 1988, noting 19 findings, including that, and I quote, ``Joseph Stalin and those around him committed genocide against Ukrainians in 1932-33.''

We also gained knowledge through the recollections of survivors. Dr. Walter Lyzohub of Redford Township, Michigan, wrote me a letter explaining that he survived the famine, but that the famine took the lives of his sister Vera as well as his brother Ivan. His sister and brother were aged 10 and 9 respectively. It was heartbreaking, heartbreaking, to read that letter. Dr. Lyzohub and all the victims of this famine, this atrocity, must never be forgotten or ignored. Only through remembrance of the victims and recognition of that famine can such acts of senseless cruelty and violence against humankind be prevented from happening again.

I also would like to recognize Michael Sawkiw of the Ukrainian Congress Committee of America, who has been in the forefront of helping to bring this issue and all important issues regarding Ukraine to the attention of Members of Congress. So, Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 356 provides us once again with an opportunity for remembrance and for recognition; and I urge all my colleagues to join the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde), the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos), and me in supporting this resolution.

Mr. Chairman, from the outset I have opposed the Bush administration's approach to Iraq. It embraced the notion of pre- emptive strike where the U.S. could act alone when it determined that there was a threat, even if that threat did not pose imminent danger to the United States. Within this misguided doctrine of the Administration, other nations and the United Nations would merely be notified of an American decision with little emphasis on the United States using our unique leadership position in the world community to obtain support for collective action; strengthening the international role rather than the U.S. going it alone.

As the administration was moving to implement their doctrine, I joined others in actively opposing it. When the President asked for the authority to undertake unilateral military action against Iraq, I worked with others to draft an alternative that required the President to come back to the Congress for its approval before taking unilateral military action in the absence of authorization by the U.N. Security Council.

Unfortunately, our resolution did not pass. The rest is history--the use of false arguments to justify unilateral action, the failure to find weapons of mass destruction that were reasons given for taking unilateral military action, the inadequate planning for the aftermath in Iraq, the lack of accountability by the administration on spending to date, and the irresponsibility of not providing our troops the ceramic body armor strong enough to stop bullets fired from assault rifles.

Once again, domestic public and international pressures have forced the administration to consult in recent days with the international community through the U.N. We need to be clear that ensuring the U.N. and the international community a meaningful role in rebuilding Iraq isn't just a matter of approving a new U.N. resolution. The Administration's words must be backed by action and a change in its approach in Iraq.

So today the question for Congress remains--now that the U.S. is where it is, what should happen next?

I totally reject the propagandistic framing of the issue yesterday by Majority Leader Tom DeLay. The issue is not whether or not one supports the battle against terrorism. Mr. DeLay mistakenly describes that if you are for the battle, you are for the supplemental appropriation, and if against that battle, against the supplemental. During this debate we have heard a strong bi-partisan commitment to supporting our troops and to the reconstruction of Iraq. Whether one voted for or--as I did-- against the resolution authorizing the President to unilaterally undertake a war with Iraq, we all take seriously the responsibility to protect our troops and stabilize Iraq now.

The Administration and the Republican majority have resisted dividing the issue before us into two parts: the $65 billion for military equipment and services to support of our armed forces, and $20 billion for reconstruction efforts in Iraq. I think it is useful to consider each of the two components on their own as well as their connections.

As to the $65 billion, there seem only two realistic alternatives. One is to pull out American armed forces quickly and thus oppose the $65 billion. The other is to conclude that such a withdrawal would only add to the chaos and take a chance on what would result. No one has seriously suggested a third alternative--to say but to reduce significantly the $65 billion in military assistance.

Going beyond the rhetoric that the U.S. should not ``cut and run,'' I believe that an abrupt withdrawal of American troops, once the Administration positioned them in Iraq, would lead to chaos that could result in turmoil and potentially dangerous results in Iraq as well as the entire region.

Then, how about the $20 billion for reconstruction? No matter how strongly one opposed the unilateral, pre-emptive military action by the Bush Administration, it is hard to conclude that the U.S. should not bear any responsibility for reconstruction efforts. No matter how vehemently one rejected the Administration's misguided notion that everything would easily fall in place after the military captured Iraq, and how frightful was the lack of effective planning by the administration for its aftermath, it seems inescapable that our Nation must now assist substantially in reconstruction efforts.

But this does not mean that we should bear all the costs and basically control the decisions in this period of reconstruction. As usual, the Administration has dug in its heels, and said it is their way and nothing else. I regret that the Majority Leadership in the House would not even allow a vote on the Obey amendment, which would have offset the entire $87 billion cost of the Iraq package by rolling back a small portion of the 2001 tax cuts for the top 1 percent of income earners in this country. Instead, every dollar of this package will be added to the already huge Federal deficit.

We tried in the House to build into American assistance a mixture of grants and loans. I voted for this approach and was disappointed that it lost by a narrow margin because there were more Republicans who supported the idea than voted for it as a result of pressure from their leadership and the White House. One reason to support this approach is that it is likely to further the Iraqi engagement and investment in the decision making process and results of reconstruction.

The Senate last night passed an amendment that provides for a mixture of grants and loans. The way it is worded, it might well lead to a greater financial responsibility on the part of other nations.

The action of the Senate provides a real hope that the final package will have a mixture

of financing and spread the cost of reconstruction with other nations and Iraq, which possesses the second largest reserves of oil in the world. I believe, therefore, there is now more, not less, reason to support the $20 billion for reconstruction.

Therefore, if one does not oppose the $65 billion for the Armed Forces and one does not believe that we can avoid substantial involvement in the reconstruction of Iraq, my conclusion is that a yes vote is warranted today. I will withhold a decision on the conference bill that is now necessitated by the Senate action last night because an effort to strip out the Senate provision on a loan would again call into question this administration's commitment to internationalizing the reconstruction of Iraq. A major reason to vote no on this bill would be to protest further the mistaken path followed by the Administration from the very start. I respect that approach, through I have chosen otherwise on this bill and I will continue to urge that the mind set and the perspectives of this administration that led them to their go-it-alone actions in Iraq are more than adequate cause for their defeat at the ballot box in 2004.

Ms. CORRINE BROWN of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I was horrified to learn that tens of thousands of our troops were sent out to battle without proper armor. And to this day, they still lack many necessary items. I spoke with several soldiers who suffered injuries to their legs, and many who totally lost their legs when bullets crashed through their vehicles because the cars were not fortified with armored plates. I met with soldiers who suffered chest injuries because they did not have bulletproof vests.

This is a very important issue, and I want the American public to clearly understand this point. Even though we have 44,000 soldiers in Iraq today without proper bulletproof vests, the President asked for absolutely nothing to protect these troops. Let me repeat that. We have 44,000 soldiers in Iraq without body armor, and the President didn't ask for a single cent to protect these soldiers. I guess these brave men and women will have to wait until Halliburton starts making body armor before they can get the protection they need and deserve.

Congress approved $310 million in April to buy 300,000 bulletproof vests for our troops. But sadly, only $75 million of that money has gone to the Army office that is responsible for purchasing these vests. Where is the accountability that this Administration promised this nation?

The Republicans keep telling us this bill is all about the soldiers, and everyone in this Congress supports our soldiers. but how can a bill for our soldiers not include money for basic protections like Body Armor, Boots, Camouflage, Rucksacks, Armored Vehicles, Tank Tracks, Humvee Tires, Signal Jammers, and Chemical Suits. We can't even provide these brave men and women with simple necessities like drinking water, showers, tennis shoes, and even toothpaste.

Just six months ago, we appropriated $79 billion dollars for the war effort, and yet relatives have resorted to buying body armor in the U.S. and shipping it to troops in Iraq. What happened to this money, Mr. President? These families and this Congress want and deserve to know.

Yesterday I was shocked to find out that the Services did not fully meet immunization and other predeployment requirements. Based on GAO review of deployments from four installations, between 14 and 46 percent of servicemembers were missing at least one of their required immunizations prior to deployment. As many as 36 percent of the servicemembers were missing two or more of their required immunizations, such as influenza and hepatitis. We cannot send our servicemembers to war without first making certain that they are protected from in-theater disease threats. We need to take care of the basics for our troops!

The American people who are writing the check for Iraq do not want a grant program. Like anyone who lends money in the real world, they want their money back. I would encourage every citizen to call their Senators and Congressperson to let them know that you do not support another Blank Check slush fund for this Administration.

Vote no on this bill, and no on another blank check for the President and his campaign contributors. Mr. President, this account is already overdrawn.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to offer my congratulations to Dr. Annamarie Roeper, a beloved educator, innovator, school administrator, and model global citizen.

After Annamarie and her husband, George, fled the horrors of Holocaust in Germany, they set out to provide a safe place for children to grow and become intelligent, sensitive contributors to society. Arriving in the United States in 1941, they founded the Roeper School in Detroit, which expanded to include additional schools in Bloomfield Hills and Birmingham. For over forty years, these two noted German scholars ran the Roeper City and Country School which became a well- known school for gifted children.

The school's unique curriculum is based on Dr. Roeper's evolving philosophy that growth and learning is driven by a child's inner self, not just intellect. In nurturing children's creativity, Dr. Roeper challenges students to respect inherent dignity, value differences, and develop a global sense of the world around them.

Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me in applauding Annamarie Roeper, who will celebrate her 85th birthday with many of Roeper's students, faculty and friends on October 12th at the Upper School in Birmingham. Her vision for educational excellence and her dedication to foster socially responsible citizens is her legacy to the school she founded.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this temporary solution to a very serious pension financing problem. I hope it can become law quickly.

Although this is not the permanent solution, protecting both workers and their employers that I had hoped for, it is far better than other options being considered today. If Congress does not act, starting in the next plan year, companies will have to contribute more money to their defined pension benefit plans than will likely be needed to pay their pension obligations. That will harm business and labor alike.

Businesses would be forced to lock away resources that could be used to upgrade plants, hire workers and build for the future. Workers would have to accept reduced wages or reduced future benefit pension benefits. Although this rate adjustment may seem technical to some, in reality, it is a critical part of the solution to the manufacturing and job crisis which will require more action by this Congress and by the White House than new titles for bureaucrats or encouraging speeches.

I want to remind my colleagues of just how serious the crisis is for workers and their families. Over $2 trillion in tax cuts have helped move this Nation from substantial Federal budget surpluses to huge deficits without creating jobs or overall increasing income for families. For the past 2 years, median income has dropped and poverty has risen. An average of 250,000 jobs per month were created during the Clinton administration, and in the Bush administration an average of 80,000 jobs a month are being lost. It would take us nearly a year to create enough jobs to replace the 3 million jobs lost and also account for population growth, even if we created over 500,000 jobs a month, the high under the Clinton administration.

Unfortunately, the Republican leadership in Congress and the Bush administration decided to wait and see about the economy and did not view the crisis like it was, including this pension issue. Rather than begin work on a consensus solution immediately after Congress passed a temporary fix 2 years ago, the Bush administration waited a year and a half, until the temporary rate was about to expire to unveil a controversial yield curve formula. It would disproportionately increase pension costs for already struggling manufacturing companies.

At the same time, leaders in this House initially delayed action on this matter by holding the rate correction hostage to action on an expensive and controversial package.

I hope this bipartisan action on pensions will be quickly followed by action

on another bipartisan effort, the Rangel-Crane-Manzullo-Levin bill. It would provide a needed tax cut for manufacturers who produce in the United States of America. Also needed is an extension of unemployment benefits for those still out of work through no fault of their own, millions of people, and other real actions specifically targeted to help turn this economy around.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 7 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cardin), and I ask unanimous consent that the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cardin) be able to control the remainder of the time on this side.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to congratulate Martin J. ``Hoot'' McInerney, who will receive the 2003 Goodfellow of the Year Award at the 14th Annual Tribute Breakfast on Friday, October 3, 2003 sponsored by the Old Newsboys' Goodfellows Fund of Detroit.

The prestigious award is presented to distinguished and noteworthy people who have contributed significantly to the community. ``Hoot'' McInerney richly deserves this honor.

Mr. McInerney is a successful car dealer and philanthropist. He is involved in a number of organizations and charities that reflect his commitment to helping people. He is a founder of the St. Joseph Mercy Men of Mercy, the

J.P. McCarthy Foundation and the Millie Schembechler Memorial Golf Benefit. He also provides leadership and support for these charities.

In addition to founding numerous charities, ``Hoot'' McInerney also generously donates to many local, national and international organizations. Among the many charities he supports are several Catholic churches and schools, the Police Athletic League Tournament, Focus: HOPE, Operation Read, Special Olympics, Children's Hospital and the Old Newsboys' Goodfellow Fund of Detroit.

The Goodfellows have given to the needy children of our community by offering emergency dental care, shoes, camperships, college scholarships and a variety of other programs to provide help through tough economic times. The program the Goodfellows are best known for is the gift packages. This year their goal is to buy Christmas gift packages for 41,500 needy Detroit area school children.

On a personal note, I know of no one who has a wider range of friendships than ``Hoot''.

Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me in recognizing this outstanding community leader, Martin J. ``Hoot'' McInerney as he receives the 2003 Goodfellow of the Year award and to congratulate the Goodfellows as they honor its 89 year-old pledge of ``No Kiddie Without a Christmas.''

Mr. Speaker, I hope that everyone who was not here today, our colleagues, will read the words in the Congressional Record and understand where the two parties are coming from. The gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake) has made clear that what he wants to do is to make sure that prescription drugs is not an entitlement. So, therefore, he wants to means test for those earning $60,000 and above. We must make clear that the logic is it will be reduced from 60 to 50, to 40. That will erode the Nation of an entitlement, if you are consistent.

So this is not a slippery slope. This is a sure path to destroy the prescription drug benefit as an entitlement. You have made that pretty clear. The logic leads to no conclusion but that. Then if you want to erode prescription drugs as an entitlement, the next logical step is to do the same for Medicare, if you are logical.

Then I am totally confused by the gentlewoman from Colorado (Mrs. Musgrave) who says that we do not want to give this benefit to the wealthy. $50,000, $60,000, $70,000 is wealthy? And I would like to know where the people who have spoken for this motion were with the child credit vote, where we were talking about $15,000, $20,000. My guess is that the gentleman who is in support of this voted against it.

Then I would like to ask, after this discussion about let us not help the very wealthy, how you voted in terms of the estate tax that applies only to a few thousand people a year, to indeed the wealthy, where I think almost by rote all of you supported the elimination of the estate tax.

So this is clear, number one, you want to destroy prescription drugs as an entitlement; and, number two, you are totally inconsistent when you say someone earning $60,000 or $70,000 should not have the full benefit of a prescription drug plan, but then you vote not to give a child credit to people earning between $10,000 and $25,000. Then you vote that the 3,000 or 4,000 very, very wealthy families in this country, very few of them who are farmers, who are in small business, should be able to pass on millions, millions, and millions without paying estate tax.

I hope this discussion will be read by everybody before they vote and understand the meaning of their vote. Destroy prescription drugs as an entitlement and have crocodile tears because the very wealthy would benefit from a prescription drug benefit when all of your other votes show that you do not have that same sensitivity when it comes to the tax structure of the United States of America.

Mr. Speaker, on Friday, September 26, 2003 the Sterling Heights Fire Fighters Union will host their Annual Dinner-Dance honoring their 2003 retirees. This is a wonderful event that I have been honored to attend in the past where hundreds of firefighters, their families, and appreciative members of the community come together to recognize the Sterling Heights firefighting family.

I am proud to rise today to pay tribute to the careers of three distinguished firefighters.

Captain Pat Silver began his firefighting career in 1978. He received the Meritorious Unit Citation for conducting a search and removal of a woman from a well-involved trailer fire. He also received the Fire Chief's Award for assisting the Training Division in developing a performance standard for pumper operations and developing and producing the ``FEO'' and ``Dinosaur'' newsletter.

Battalion Chief Bob Moore was appointed a Firefighter in 1973. He received the Fire Chief's Award for work on the Radio Committee, for using his Graphic Commercial Arts degree to mark the fleet of the Sterling Heights Fire Department with the new city logo and for his heroic participation in a house fire.

Fire Marshal Thad Balmas was appointed Firefighter in 1979. He received the Veteran's Recognition Award for serving in the Air Force and the Meritorious Unit Citation for his involvement at a major gas line explosion.

These gentlemen have demonstrated acts of heroism and actions above and beyond the call of duty. Indeed, the people of Sterling Heights have been well-served by the untiring care and concern each has given without limitations to their community.

Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me in recognizing these gentlemen for their dedication, accomplishments and years of service. I wish them good health and happiness as they embark on a new phase of their lives.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to congratulate the Royal Oak Lions Club on the occasion of their 75th anniversary.

The Royal Oak Lions Club, founded in 1928, has indeed taken up the challenge that Helen Keller presented to the International Lions Convention in 1925. She asked them to expand their interests and include services to the blind and the visually impaired.

The Royal Oak Lions Club has offered their dedicated service to numerous programs and organizations, including Leader Dogs for the Blind, the Penrickton Center for Multiply Handicapped Children, Lions Visually Impaired Camp, scholarships for hearing-impaired students at Madonna University, and the Beaumont Silent Children's speech program. Not only has this community-minded institution devoted its effort to these programs, it has also provided essential support to a myriad of services for our youth and vital community-based charities.

The Royal Oak Lions Club and its membership are important parts of the fabric of the Royal Oak and Southeast Oakland County community.

Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me in recognizing their longstanding commitment to public service and wishing the Royal Oak Lions Club continued success in all of their important endeavors.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cardin) for all of his work.

Like the gentleman from Maryland, I favor this extension. The good news is that it is not a step backward. We are going to continue State flexibility, we are going to continue the focus on work. We are going to continue provisions for child care and health care and transportation, but I want to take this opportunity, as Mr. Cardin did, to put this into perspective. I am glad the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. English) is still here.

We worked hard in 1995 and 1996 on welfare reform. It was not a partisan effort. It was an effort with a Democratic President and with substantial work from Democrats in the House and in the Senate. Significant changes were made from the bill originally vetoed by President Clinton. Adequate child care, adequate health care, those were placed into the bill before it became a law.

This time around what the Republican majority in the House decided to do was to proceed, as Mr. Cardin has said, on a very partisan basis. There was no effort to sit down as was true in 1995 and 1996, eventually, to see if we could work out together Welfare Reform II.

So, on a very partisan vote, the first vote was 229 to 197, the bill was passed and was sent to the Senate. Sad it is to say that since that time, and it has been a year and a half ago, there has been zero effort by the majority in this House to sit down with a number of us who were involved in 1995 and 1996 and those who have been active since and try to work out a bill on a bipartisan basis.

We have urged that welfare reform be continued and really improved, improved by more adequate child care, improved by more adequate health care. The data is pretty clear that many people who are moving from welfare to work are losing their health care after a year. Welfare reform should be improved by maintaining State flexibility and also by helping those who move from welfare to work to work out of poverty and to work into a decent and adequate wage.

So why not sit down and talk about these improvements in welfare reform? Well, the Republican majority here has done on welfare reform what they have done on most important issues: Ram it through, thumb their nose at the minority, including those who very much want to work on an issue, and send it over to the Senate. And like other products here on a very partisan basis, it runs into trouble in the Senate.

And so what is said by the majority here? Oh, it is the Senate's fault, when it was really the failure of the Republican majority here to start welfare reform on a proper, appropriate, and effective track.

Mr. Speaker, the good news is that the extension for 6 months will keep the better part of the welfare reform programs: health care, day care, State flexibility, and the focus on work. The bad news is that we have lost the opportunity to improve, to build on welfare reform, to have a sharper focus on movement of those who leave work out of poverty. Instead, the focus in their bill is really those who stay on welfare being kept busy.

That is not the wise focus for welfare reform in 2003 as it was not in 2002, and I hope 2004 will see their reaching out a hand to talk these things over. If not, I am afraid we will be back here with another extension, and you will point to the Senate controlled by the same party as you are a Member of and will blast the Senate. But that is not very constructive. It is not very useful.

So do not talk about all the hearings you have held, all the witnesses you have heard. Talk about how many minutes you have spent sitting down with the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cardin), who is our ranking member, and the rest of us on the subcommittee to see if we could work out a bill. Tell us how many minutes. The answer is zero.

I say this not really to castigate, but to urge that you give the process a chance. Welfare reform deserves an effort to build a bipartisan and better product. I deeply believe that. So I urge that we vote for this extension, and I also urge that the extension be followed by a true effort at finding a good product for the next phase of welfare reform.

Mr. Speaker, I am voting in favor of this bill today because not doing so would cause irreparable harm to the States.

The current highway funding bill expires 6 days from today, and unless ewe pass this extension, highway and transit programs will effectively be shut down. Passage of the measure before the House will extend the highway program for 5 months, until February 29, 2004.

The reason we are in the unenviable position of passing a short-term extension is due to the intransigence of some in the White House and in the Congress, who refuse to provide the funds necessary for an adequate reauthorization bill that fairly addresses the inequities of the current mechanisms by which the Federal government funds roads and transit in this country.

My home State of Michigan is a donor State, which means it sends more in gas tax revenue to Washington than it receives back in highway funding. For the past 5 years, Michigan has received on average 88 cents back for every dollar sent to Washington. At the same time, 25 States and the District of Columbia receive more than a dollar back for every dollar sent to Washington. The bill we are voting on continues this inequitable formula for another 5 months. It is to do more to level the playing field.

I have joined 141 of my colleagues in the House in cosponsoring legislation requiring a minimum return of 95 percent for all States. We can bring this policy change about in a number of ways, but the status quo is simply not acceptable.

Mr. Speaker, we are simply passing a stopgap measure today. The time had come for the leadership in this House to buckle down and bring forth a long-term reauthorization bill that provides fair equity to all States and affords them the ability to enact their long-term goals.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to congratulate Reverend Father Demetrios Kavadas of Assumption Greek Orthodox Church, who will receive the 2003 ``Alexander Macomb Citizens of the Year'' award at the 20th annual March of Dimes dinner on Wednesday, September 24, 2003.

Father Kavadas will be the recipient of the 2003 Man of the Year Award. Father Kavadas takes great pride in accepting this award as the first clergyman and the first citizen of Hellenic background to be honored as Man of the Year.

He married Rodothea Palaiologou and they had four children: Iphigenia, Stephen, John, and Basil. Four years after being ordained he was appointed the ``Protopresbyter'' of the Assumption congregation which is now located in St. Clair Shores. He served in this capacity for 42 years before his retirement.

Through Father Kavadas's infectious passion, sense of humor, and charismatic sermons, Assumption has grown to become one of the largest churches in the Metro-Detroit area. His commitment to building a vibrant church not only served parishioners, but the surrounding community as well. Our family has had the privilege and pleasure of his friendship for many years.

While at Assumption, he created a cultural center that residents of all ages and religious backgrounds have come to depend on for exercise classes, cooking lessons, driver's training courses, basketball games, seminars, senior expos, etc. He also oversaw an award winning PreSchool which was open to all in the community.

In his years serving the metro Detroit community, Father Kavadas has received many awards and served in various ways. His achievements include being an active member of groups that have touched the community, especially groups that have fought illnesses, from thalassemia (a disease particular to the Greek community) to MIRA (Mental Illness Research Association, founding member). He coordinated COPS FOR KIDS for more than 25 years, helping needy children of St. Clair Shores.

Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me in recognizing Reverend Father Demetrios Kavadas for his service to his community as he receives the Alexander Macomb Citizens of the Year-Man of the Year Award.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to congratulate Dana Camphous Peterson, who will receive the 2003 Alexander Macomb Citizens of the Year Award at the 20th annual March of Dimes dinner on Wednesday, September 24, 2003.

Dana Camphous Peterson will be the recipient of the 2003 Woman of the Year Award. Dana is one of the founding directors of the Care House in Mount Clemens.

Like the March of Dimes, Care House provides care and comfort to the most vulnerable and important members of the community: our children. While successful in the business world, Dana wanted to refocus her energies so that she could give more to the community. When local community leaders began exploring the idea of founding Care House, Dana immediately jumped on board. And we are glad she did.

The continuing goal of Care House is to increase public awareness for the need to expand this kind of service to other communities. Child abuse is a national problem and in many communities around the country, the abuse is left untreated. But thanks to Dana's hard work and dedication, Macomb has a place to serve the victims of child abuse.

Her dedication and commitment to the community is demonstrated also through her involvement with the Zonta Club of Macomb, the Downtown Mount Clemens Planning Breakfast Club and the children's clothing store ``It's a Small World's Children's Fashions.''

Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me in recognizing Dana Camphous Peterson for her care and comfort to abused children as she receives the Alexander Macomb Citizens of the Year--Woman of the Year Award.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to congratulate the Switalski family, who will receive the 2003 ``Alexander Macomb Citizens of the Year'' award at the 20th annual March of Dimes dinner on Wednesday, September 24, 2003.

The Switalski family will be the first recipients of the Donna Greco Issa Family of the Year Award. This award was renamed in honor of a volunteer who passed away this year. Donna was a great supporter of the March of Dimes and her community.

It is a fitting and a richly deserved recognition for a family that serves their communities through civil service as well as community involvement.

Norbert and Nancy Switalski married in 1950 and raised seven children. As parents, they inculcated the virtues of faith, discipline, hard work, and public service into their children. Norbert died in 1981 at the age of 58.

The Switalskis have made public service their calling. Mark and Matthew are both Macomb County Court Judges in the Family Court Division. Mickey is a State Senator having served as a State Representative, County Commissioner and on the Roseville City Council.

Their commitment to family is best reflected through their devotion to adoption. In 1997, Mark adopted three children from Poland; Matthew presides over all Macomb County adoptions as a Family Court Judge, and Mickey worked diligently to get an adoption income tax credit into law.

Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me in recognizing the Switalski family for their extraordinary service and distinguished leadership as they receive the Donna Greco Issa Family of the Year Award.

Mr. Speaker, I want to review the history of this block grant. I am sorry that tempers have been lost.

I really think we need to spend a few minutes looking at the history of this block grant because what happened was this: It was $2.8 billion before welfare reform, and then we reduced it as part of a welfare reform. Many of us were unhappy about that, those of us who were able eventually to be able to improve welfare reform with child care and also with health care. The promise then was made that this money would be returned to the States after 5 years. Then a few years later it was reduced to $1.7 billion.

Money was taken from this block grant to pay for transportation, totally unrelated. So we have a commitment to the States to return the money for this block grant, money that goes for child abuse prevention, Meals on Wheels, home care for the disabled, child care, adoption services and domestic violence programs. The Senate has done this. And now apparently the leadership on the Republican side is urging everybody within your ranks to march once again in unison in opposition to the gentleman from Maryland's (Mr. Cardin) proposal.

That is inconsistent with what we have pledged, inconsistent with the bill that the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Mrs. Johnson) and I and others have introduced year after year, inconsistent with the position taken by a majority of the Republicans on the Committee on Ways and Means.

So why are you today again not fulfilling a promise that you essentially made? Oh, the argument is there is money in TANF. The gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cardin) has already answered that. What is happening in TANF now is that more is being spent than is being provided. It is not a good excuse.

The excuse is given, well, we provided billions to the States recently. They needed this money, not for the block grant but for other purposes. So I urge support for the Cardin amendment for these important purposes; and I close with this in terms of fiscal responsibility. Look, we try to pay for this. You are digging a deeper hole.

If you do not like everything that is in the Cardin proposal, come up with your own. But you insist time after time bringing up bills that cost billions of dollars, and you have sunset the provision for the deductions for those who do not itemize. You know that sunset will never be allowed to persist. We are not going to take away from deductions from nonitemizers after 2 years. You know that. So this bill is really going to cost $20 billion more or less, and the Democrats have said we will step up to the plate and we will be fiscally responsible. And you as part of the leadership are again asking the Republicans to march in lockstep against fiscal responsibility.

You should be in support of this bill, in support of the Cardin amendment.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to congratulate the Central Macomb County Chamber of Commerce today, in recognition of the Chamber's 100th anniversary.

For 100 years the Central Macomb County Chamber of Commerce has dedicated itself to the community. The Chamber is a local organization operated by and for the people of the business community of Clinton Township, Mount Clemens, Harrison Township, Macomb Township and New Baltimore. It is a focal point of leadership and a gathering place for those who make the strategic decisions that shape our business lives.

The Chamber's history as a champion of downtown businesses started in 1903 as the Mount Clemens Business Men's Association. Negotiating favorable rates with the Rapid Railway interurban line, sponsoring Macomb County days, lobbying for Shadyside Park, and the establishment of Selfridge Field as a permanent military facility were among the many accomplishments of the dedicated members.

The Association had become the primary organization of representation for all types of businesses in Mount Clemens. It represented merchants, bathhouses and factories. The name was changed to the Mount Clemens Board of Commerce in 1926 to clarify their purpose and reflect their diversity. Then, in 1959, they changed the organization's name to the Greater Mount Clemens Chamber of Commerce and, finally, to its present name of Central Macomb County Chamber of Commerce in 1981.

The name may change but the dedication and service to the community remain steadfast. The Chamber's original bylaws and declaration of principles from 1903, ``to encourage the patronizing of home industry; to encourage the bringing of manufacturing enterprises to our city; to promote co-operation among ourselves and to endeavor to advance in every legitimate way the welfare of our city'' continue to resonate today.

Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me in recognizing the Central Macomb County Chamber of Commerce on their 100th year anniversary.