Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume, and I ask unanimous consent to yield the balance of the time, after I am done, to the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos), the ranking member of the Committee on International Relations, and also that he be allowed to allocate that time as he desires.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this legislation. H.R. 1584, the Clean Diamond Trade Act, implements our obligations, the U.S. obligations under the Kimberley Process Certification Scheme, an international system designed to ensure that rough diamonds entering the U.S. are legally mined and traded.

Once in place, this system will be instrumental in ensuring that conflict diamonds, gems that have fueled decades-long wars and atrocities in Africa, are not imported into the United States.

This legislation represents the culmination of a 3-year effort led in substantial part by the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf) and former Member, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Hall), and the gentleman from New York (Mr. Houghton), who is here today, and I salute his efforts, and the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel).

Each of these Members has helped to keep the spotlight focused on the terrible toll trade in conflict diamonds has had on the people of sub- Saharan Africa. They have worked diligently and responsibly to address the concerns of the administration and of the gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas). They have also worked to address concerns about the impact of rough diamond regulations on legitimate diamond trade in countries such as Botswana, Namibia, South Africa, and Tanzania.

Let me just say briefly a word about the circumstances under which this bill is being considered. There is an urgent time factor. As a result, this legislation was not considered in the Committee on Ways and Means or the Committee on International Relations; but this was not basically an effort to bypass the committee process which, in my view, is essential to the development of sound legislation. Rather, we agreed, on a bipartisan basis, because of time constraints, to proceed in this manner, in part in large measure because of the implications of continued nonaction by the U.S.

Specifically, as I understand it, the entire international certification system was not going to go into effect because we here had not implemented our obligations. So I am glad we were able to work across the aisle, across committees and with the NGO community,

the diamond industry and the diamond mining country representatives to put this bill together.

I believe it is a beneficial work product, one which I urge my colleagues to pass; and also I think it is an example of how to proceed on a bipartisan basis. It makes sense here, and it makes sense on other important issues.

Specific provisions I am pleased to see included are inclusion of recordkeeping requirements for importers and exporters of rough diamonds, mandatory executive branch oversight of any entity that issues Kimberley process certificates and provisions to coordinate activities of the various agencies and departments that will implement this bill and U.S. Kimberley process obligations. With these additions, this bill sends an important signal to the international community that we here are engaged; that we here take this issue seriously; and that we here expect other nations to take the necessary steps to help eradicate this plight.

Mr. Speaker, since September 11, we have begun to prepare for a number of events that once seemed unthinkable. One of them is an epidemic of smallpox, a deadly disease that we thought we had erased from the earth. The best way for us to protect ourselves against that is to vaccinate our first responders--the nurses, policemen, and firefighters that we would depend on to recognize a smallpox outbreak and quickly act to protect all of us against a disease that spreads rapidly and kills a third of its victims.

But in the three and a half months since President Bush announced plans to vaccinate 500,000 first responders, fewer than 25,000 have volunteered. In Michigan, where we had a goal of vaccinating 5,000 people, fewer than five hundred people have been vaccinated.

The smallpox vaccine has the worst record of negative side effects, including death, of any vaccine in our history. Experts estimate that one in a million people vaccinated will die, and many more will become ill, some seriously. Sadly, three people who volunteered to be vaccinated have already died.

These are sobering statistics, but it is not the personal danger that is keeping first responders from volunteering. Every day, our police, firefighters, and health care workers risk injury and death to help others. But giving them the smallpox vaccine without proper education, pre-screening, and surveillance doesn't just endanger them--it endangers all of us. When smallpox vaccination was still widespread, nearly 20 percent of infections from the vaccine came from secondary contact. And asking first responders to be vaccinated without a safety net if they become ill, are disabled, or die endangers their families and those who depend on them for support.

The Republican leadership says we don't have time to have a discussion with nurses, policemen, firefighters, and other first responders about what kind of program they need to feel safe because preparing for bioterrorism is an emergency. But if we don't have that discussion, we will have done nothing to address the emergency.

Receiving the smallpox vaccine is voluntary for first responders. First responders don't think the current program is safe, so they are declining the vaccine. That's why our current program isn't working and why after months of saying a vaccine injury compensation system wasn't necessary, House Republicans are willing to bring up a bill. But if the bill we pass doesn't make first responders feel safe, they still won't volunteer to be vaccinated, and we'll be right back where we started, except we'll have wasted a lot of time on a program we already know will be ineffective.

Wouldn't it make more sense to get it right the first time? By voting against this bill, which the International Union of Firefighters, the American Nurses Association, and the International Union of Police Associations say does not address the concerns that have prevented them from being vaccinated, I hope to give the House an opportunity to sit down with first responders and craft a workable solution. It is precisely because this is an emergency that we don't have time to pass unworkable legislation, wait for it to fail, and start again.

I regret that we did not have the opportunity to vote on a real solution tonight. I hope we can move immediately to pass a real solution, without wasting any more time on political gamesmanship.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the Oak Park Business and Education Alliance (OPBEA) at their Annual Community Awards Luncheon on Friday, March 28th at Glen Oaks Country Club in Farmington Hills.

The Oak Park Business and Education Alliance is a non-profit organization of educators, businesses and government entities. This organization marshalls important segments of the community to focus on increasing educational opportunities for Oak Park students. Since its inception in 1993, they have become an invaluable asset to the community.

On Friday, this fine organization will honor a community activist, Mike Tobin, and a community institution, Oakland Community College.

Mike Tobin, President of Mike Building Company of Farmington, learned his trade from his father who from the beginning concentrated on building homes that would open the residential market to more families. That practice continues today because Mr. Tobin's his first love is the single family affordable home. He shares the enjoyment of first-time buyers when they realize they have become ``homeowners.'' Aside from his love of building, and his commitment to the future of the building industry and the workforce of tomorrow, Mr. Tobin is a recognized leader in the community and a devoted supporter of many charities and institutions, including the OPBEA.

Oakland Community College (OCC) established in 1964, began with 2 campuses and was proud of its initial enrollment of 3860 students. Today, they have grown to more than 27,000 students covering 5 campuses in Oakland County. OCC is an invaluable resource for the community, the region and the State as they provide a wide range of affordable services and educational opportunities to students of all ages. OCC is an active participant in the OPBEA Board as a connecting link between education and employment.

Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me in congratulating Mike Tobin, Oakland Community College and the Oak Park Business and Education Alliance and wish them success in their future endeavors.

Mr. Chairman, we have heard the siren song again, but let us look at the facts. First of all, as to veterans, this is undeniable, and I want to read it: The reconciliation instructions in the Republican plan require $14.6 billion in unspecified reductions in veterans' benefits. This $14.6 billion cut represents a cut of 3.8 percent in mandatory spending below the levels in current law, and we are doing this on this day.

Secondly, as to the income figures, for families with incomes below $75,000, they are not going to receive this big boon as stated in terms of the dividend tax cut. They will receive an average tax benefit of $42. And for the families that are in the middle 20 percent, the average is not in the thousands under the tax cut of the Republicans, but only $246.

So what has happened here? A party that once said they had the mantle of fiscal responsibility, they are sacrificing that on the altar of irresponsible tax cuts; deficits not as far as the eye can see, but further than the eye can see. In the long run, all will be hurt except the very wealthy as interest rates go up, and, therefore, it impacts on our houses and our cars and everything we buy; in the short run, kids and their education, veterans, as I mentioned, people who need health care, and all of us who need homeland security.

This is an irresponsible budget and digs a deeper and deeper hole of deficits. We have some sound alternatives. Let us vote for them.

This is an important bill. Many of us regret that it could not have been brought to this floor earlier without provisions that were totally unrelated to its basic purpose. It is important because so many of our Reserve and Guard members today are overseas, along with others, and what this bill says very significantly is that all members of our Armed Forces should be treated with equity and treated with the utmost sensitivity and respect.

The bill is important because we bring it up today at a significant moment. What it says, I think, for all of us, is this: Whatever the disagreements, and there have been and remain such as to the policies and approach of this administration, we here stand fully behind those men and women who are fighting in our armed services.

So I hope that today we will join in support of this bill. It now has a single important purpose, and that is to say to our troops, here and abroad, we stand with you.

Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel) has explained his reluctant support because of the provision in here that needs to be in here. As I understand it, that positive provision was taken from the other bill and placed in this bill, so we are in a situation where, as to the clearly legitimate provision, we either vote ``yes'' and pass this or vote ``no'' because of other provisions and, therefore, bring down what we should be doing.

This is not the way to proceed in a deliberative body where there is also respect for the views of every Member of this institution and the ability of every Member here to be heard, to at least raise the issue of amendments.

So I want to just say a few words about two of the provisions, one relating to individual inversions or those expatriates, people who leave the country to avoid taxes. There is a Senate approach and a House approach. The Senate approach is far superior. What it does essentially is it says to people who leave this country, individuals, we are going to tax you as you leave on all of your unrealized income. The House bill is much weaker. We should have had a chance to present these two alternatives on the floor of the House.

Secondly, let me say a word about the sense of the Congress on the issue of corporate expatriation. The gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Neal) has had a bill here for months that addresses this issue. What this sense of the Congress provision does is essentially to, I think, paper it over and to paper it over incorrectly. Essentially what it says is, to those who engage in corporate expatriation, it is not your fault, it is the fault of the Tax Code. And I do not think we should be giving that kind of, if not approval, a pass to those corporations that escape American taxes by moving a headquarters overseas while often continuing to have a major presence in the U.S.

We can do much better on both individual and corporate inversions expatriations. But what has happened here is we have eliminated our chance to even consider this intelligently and deliberately by putting these provisions in a bill in a way that we cannot vote ``no.''

So those of us who will vote ``yes,'' in many cases, vote with those limitations.

Mr. Speaker, today Mr. Rangel, Mr. Pitts, Mr. Cardin and myself introduced a bill that would grant permanent normal trade relations (PNTR) to Russia and ``graduate'' Russia from the application of the so-called Jackson-Vanik amendment. The legislation would provide a historic update in U.S.-Russia trade relations. It would strengthen U.S.-Russian relations and reinforce progress Russia has made in many areas. Additionally, the legislation would ensure that Congress continues to play an active role--with the Administration and with Russia--in confronting trade disputes and negotiating the terms of Russia's WTO accession.

It is useful to recall at the outset that the Jackson-Vanik amendment was itself an amendment to Title IV of the Trade Act of 1974, a trade statute. In particular, Title IV created a framework for conducting trade relations with non-market economies. The Jackson-Vanik amendment, which has been an effective tool for raising freedom of emigration and human rights concerns, is a key element of Title IV; however, the underlying purpose and function of the statute were and remain the conduct of trade relations.

Accordingly, PNTR legislation must address fundamental trade issues. Consistent congressional practice is to grant PNTR to a country that is subject to Jackson-Vanik only at the time of the country's WTO accession, or when negotiations on accession were effectively completed. In this way, Congress' vote on PNTR has served as a way to signal approval for the country's WTO accession agreement. Under this approach, Congress was able to exercise its constitutional prerogative to regulate commerce with foreign nations, and the American people benefitted from the Administration negotiating the strongest possible agreement.

This precedent has led to an important series of successful accessions to the WTO, including most notably for China, on terms that reinforced the WTO rules-based system, and brought great benefits to the people of the United States as well as other WTO countries.

In the case of Russia, WTO accession terms are still being negotiated. I believe it is appropriate to depart from that precedent and grant Russia PNTR now, so long as Congress retains a strong and effective tool to ensure that U.S. interests are fully addressed in those negotiations. And, there are many critical issues that still need to be addressed--Russian commitments to open its auto market, commitments in the services and other sectors, ongoing problems with pricing in the industrial energy sector, intellectual property protection, to name just a few. Moreover, several recent actions by Russia--including last year's poultry ban and potential new restrictions on beef and pork--have renewed concerns in Congress about Russia's commitment to opening its market to U.S. exports and service providers and to adopting market-oriented reforms.

This legislation ensures that Congress will continue to play an active role in addressing trade problems as they emerge and in obtaining a strong WTO accession agreement from Russia. While giving up the precedent of using the PNTR vote as a proxy for approval of WTO accession, the legislation allows Congress to consider a resolution directly addressing the terms of agreement between the U.S. and Russia on Russia's WTO accession. While in its form, this resolution would be non-binding on the Executive, it would provide Congress with an important tool to assure itself of a continuing role in the formation of the terms of Russia's WTO accession and thereby implement Congress' constitutional responsibility of oversight over trade matters.

There are two sides to the PNTR coin--the trade issues and the ``Jackson-Vanik'' issues. The Jackson-Vanik amendment was an historic piece of legislation, aimed at addressing a serious problem in the former Soviet Union. It set forth important criteria related to freedom of emigration necessary for certain countries to obtain normal trade relations with the United States. Even from its inception, however, the Jackson-Vanik amendment was not only concerned with freedom of emigration, but also reflected the American commitment to human rights and freedom of religion. This fact is evident not only in the preamble of the Jackson-Vanik amendment, but also in the operation of U.S. relations with the former Soviet countries for nearly thirty years.

I think it is appropriate, then, that as we consider graduating Russia from the Jackson-Vanik amendment, that we place a strong emphasis on freedom of emigration, religious freedom, and human rights issues. These were the issues at the core of the Jackson-Vanik amendment, and continue to be relevant when considering ``graduation,'' particularly for Russia, which was and is in many ways the primary focus of the Jackson-Vanik amendment.

I am glad that we were able to craft a bill that addresses these vital issues in a responsible way, rather than giving them ``check-the- box'' cursory treatment. The presence of Members of the Helsinki Commission on the bill, who have a long history of dealing with human rights and religious freedoms, demonstrates that we have given these issues the careful treatment they deserve.

Earlier this week, Senator Lugar, the distinguished Senator from Indiana and a key participant in consideration of our relations with other nations, introduced a Russia PNTR bill. This bill did not address the issue of assuring a continuing congressional role in the resolution of vital elements of an agreement on Russia's WTO accession. I believe that Congress has a substantial role to play in overseeing negotiations of Russia WTO accession agreement to ensure that it provides the strongest benefits for U.S. workers, farmers and businesses, and therefore we are introducing this legislation today.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 342, the ``Mosquito Abatement for Safety and Health Act,'' and urge the House to join me in voting for it.

There is a real and growing public health threat posed by the West Nile virus in my state of Michigan, as well as many other states throughout the country. Last year, Oakland County, Michigan, had 187 cases of West Nile Virus and 20 deaths. Macomb County reported 103 cases and six deaths. Many communities in my district have acted locally, but clearly the problem must be attacked broadly, across community lines.

All levels of government must be involved in responding to this clear and present health risk. Congress must do more to support State and local public health efforts to combat the spread of West Nile. The bill before the House today represents the least we should do to combat this mosquito-borne disease. It establishes two temporary grant programs to help state and local governments assess mosquito problems, and coordinate and operate mosquito control programs. The bill authorizes $100 million in FY 2003, and such sums as necessary through FY 2007. It is critical that Congress follow up this legislation with the appropriations needed to fund these vital programs.

I urge all my colleagues to support this important legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today because it is critical that the Record be clear about what happened earlier today on the floor of the House, and that we learn the right lessons.

The bill relating to Armed Forces Tax Fairness was supposed to be before us. The bill originally related exactly to that, tax fairness for those who are in the armed services. But it was decided before we met in committee, the Committee on Ways and Means, apparently by the leadership of that committee, that Members would be allowed to offer provisions totally unrelated to that important bill. A number of those in the majority decided to take that opportunity.

No Democrat participated in presenting any special interest or particular interest legislation. So what we saw was a flood of special interest or particular interest proposals totally unrelated to the critical issue of armed services tax fairness. Provisions relating to makers of bows and arrows, those who make fishing tackle boxes, a provision relating to the taxation of people, foreigners who bet on American horse races.

What happened? The majority leader earlier said on the floor that the result in the Committee on Ways and Means was a bipartisan one, as I heard his words. That is simply incorrect. We voted, Democrats, against a number of these particular provisions. We had roll calls. Republicans voted aye; Democrats by and large almost unanimously voted no. The gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel), the ranking member, presented a substitute that would have stripped the bill of all of these particular interest provisions and, as I remember it, have adopted the Senate provision. That was voted down.

So let the Record be clear as to what happened in the Committee on Ways and Means. The bill came out on a voice vote because Democrats did not want to vote against a bill relating truly to tax fairness for those in our armed services. However, we had made clear where we stood on those specific provisions.

What is the lesson? At best, this bill, as it came out of the Committee on Ways and Means, reflected misguided priorities and the arrogance of power. Misguided priorities because they inserted several hundred millions in provisions totally unrelated to armed services tax fairness. Bows and arrows, money there when we are shortchanging education for our kids, fish tackle boxes when there is not enough money going for homeland security. And then horse races to help those who bet on horse races when there is not enough money for people who are short on prescription drugs.

An arrogance of power that led some in the majority to decide to put on a bill relating to tax fairness for those who were abroad as well as at home, provisions that helped those who were here at home.

So I come here because it is critical the Record be clear, it be critical we learn from this experience. I hope next week early on a bill will be presented here preferably the Senate bill that treats even more fairly than the House bill, without these provisions, those in the armed services.

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

I rise in support of this bill. It is substantially the same as we considered and passed last October. We passed it by a voice vote on suspension, and it reflects the basically noncontroversial nature of the legislation, and I believe we will have the same result today.

As mentioned, there are ground rules for bringing up this legislation agreed to by both parties. They are noncontroversial, and they carry a minimal cost. But because the cost is minimal does not mean these are unimportant items. They are basically technical and miscellaneous and, therefore, the name of the bill. But at times technical and miscellaneous changes can have a real impact on U.S. businesses, on workers, on farmers, and consumers.

This bill is of that nature. It suspends or reduces import duties on numerous items for which there are no American competitors, and it does correct instances where Customs has overcharged for import duties. The provisions that relate to import duties often concern items, as mentioned, that are inputs for domestic manufacturers and for their workers; and so therefore they benefit from these provisions. So as to most of them, these are items that should help us as we compete in this globalizing economy. Also included, and I am glad they are, provisions that relate to San Antonio Airport and some technical corrections that will strengthen both CBI and the AGOA programs.

There also is in here a provision about which a number of us have a very strong concern regarding the reverse Customs program at the northern border. Some of us have been working hard to bring about a reverse Customs structure. It was included in the recently passed appropriations bill. The Committee on Ways and Means reviewed this and wants to replace what was passed with the language that is in this bill, and I have been assured that this change does not in any way affect the substance of what was included in the appropriation package, and it will not impede in any way the important implementation of the reverse Customs program. I cannot emphasize strongly enough the significance of that experiment. So, therefore, I support the provision in the bill.

We are moving forward today; and as I understand it, there are other important technical corrections that will still have to be made in the future. Let me say just a word about one provision that is not included, and that is the provision that was requested by the distinguished gentlewoman from the Virgin Islands (Mrs. Christensen). She is going to say a few words about this after I finish. The gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel), our distinguished leader, also has a strong view about that.

Let me say a word also about a provision that I think will come up at a later date regarding permanent normal trade relations as to Moldova and Armenia. Recognizing that both countries have acceded to the WTO, we will be working on this in the future. The Turkey Qualified Industrial Zone provision is not in this bill. Let me say just a word about this. We have discussed it before. It is likely at some later date that we will see some legislation regarding QIZs as it relates to Turkey, and I think we should proceed with it; but I want to again reiterate to the administration the importance of a broadened provision relating to the QIZ and Turkey. The QIZ provides benefits that in some ways are deeper and broader than those in the GSP program; and it effectively replaces the GSP program. However, unlike GSP, the QIZ statute does not include any conditionality, whether it relates to the protection of U.S. investors or respect for core labor standards or protection of intellectual property rights; and, again, I would hope that the administration would commit itself to working on including these criteria.

The gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cardin) is going to speak about Yugoslavia, Serbia, and Montenegro. He has worked very hard on this. I applaud his efforts, and I am glad that we have worked this out.

So we should proceed today with this bill. It has been tailored according to the basic rules regarding miscellaneous tariff bills, and I would hope that we can pass it as we did last time.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel), our distinguished ranking leader.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from the Virgin Islands (Mrs. Christensen), who is going to follow up on the colloquy between the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel) and the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Crane).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cardin), a very distinguished member of the Committee on Ways and Means.

(Mr. CARDIN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks, and include extraneous material.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Doggett), another distinguished Member of the Committee on Ways and Means.

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

Mr. Speaker, I have spelled out the reasons for the passage of this bill. I urge that we vote for it.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to, though this is the debate on the rule, emphasize the difference here. It is too bad no effort was made in subcommittee or full committee this time around to try to forge a bridge over these differences.

What are the differences? It is not the value of work. It is not the linkage of welfare to work. No. The difference is whether the emphasis in the Republican bill will be as, to people who are remaining on welfare, they work, or getting people off of welfare into work. And the difference is whether people working should remain in poverty or whether it should be an emphasis on people working out of poverty. And this is a major difference; and it is seen, for example, in the way the Republicans give credit to the States against the required participation rate because of caseload reduction instead of people moving into employment.

It also is shown in terms of the reduction in flexibility for the States to use vocational ed and other techniques,

other approaches, so that people move out of poverty into true independence. And here is the reason the challenge matters so much. We do not have the exact data, but a huge proportion of people who have moved off of welfare into work remain in poverty. The average for people who have moved off of welfare into work is $2,500 a quarter or $10,000 a year. It is also shown in the lack of child care money in the Republican bill, also in the lack of adequate health care. So these are important differences.

So this is not a battle of 1995 and 1996. We worked, a number of us, very hard to craft a welfare bill that paid adequate attention to health care and to day care, though it had other problems remaining in it. No. This is a question of where we go from here and whether we are going to tailor a system that gives the States the flexibility, the inducement, and the mothers the opportunity to move from welfare to work, out of poverty into true independence. That is the difference.

So I am proud to be supporting the Cardin bill, and I hope that all the Democrats will vote for it; and I regret that the Republicans made no effort at all to see if we could put this together in this year.

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

Mr. Chairman, the real issue before us is where we go from here. We can analyze where we were in 1995 and 1996. Many of us worked hard to bring about a welfare reform that linked welfare-to-work and provided child care and also provided health care. After those ingredients were placed into the bill, and it was a struggle, many of us voted for the welfare reform bill, despite serious inadequacies, especially as to legal immigrants and as to food stamps.

Where do we go from here? It is said a paycheck is dignity. Yes, a paycheck that provides people with a living wage and that moves them out of poverty is the true ticket of dignity. The problem with the bill that has been brought before us, and there are many procedural issues that have been raised, such as the failure to go through the committee process in this session; but the problem is that the emphasis in the Republican bill is not moving people off of welfare into productive work, but two problems: emphasizing those who are on welfare working, rather than moving people from welfare to work and people moving from welfare to work, though they remain in poverty. Those are the two flaws.

We can do much better. Our challenge now is whether people can move from welfare to work out of poverty and into true independence, and that is what the Cardin substitute does. That is what the Thomas bill or whatever it is called fails to do, and there has been no effort at all at any point before this session or during this session to try to bridge these differences.

The reason it is so important is because large numbers, we are not sure exactly the number, but this is clear: huge numbers of people who move from welfare to work remain in poverty. The majority earn $2,500 a quarter, $10,000 a year.

So the Republican bill fails in terms of accomplishing that goal of moving people out of poverty. So they tailor the bill so that the incentive to the States is not to get people into productive work, but to reduce caseloads no matter how it is done.

There are other problems with it. The flexibility of the States to help move people out of welfare into work and out of poverty has been reduced and their ability to use training education. There is inadequate day care money, and I want to emphasize this very briefly. There is an increase in the Republican bill, but it is discretionary money; and CBO has said it is $7.5 billion less than necessary to meet the new requirements in this bill.

We can do much, much better with State flexibility, with the right emphasis on not only welfare to work, but welfare to work that moves people out of poverty.

These differences are important distinctions. They are important differences that will lead to different results for mothers, for their children, and for our Nation; and this House is now forfeiting the chance if it passes the Republican bill to accomplish these results.

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

Mr. Chairman, the American dream is not to live in poverty; the American dream is working, and working out of poverty. There is a basic fact: huge numbers of women who have moved from welfare to work remain in poverty. And this bill restricts the flexibility of the States to tailor plans to help people move up the ladder, whether by education or by other means.

The pivot of the rationale of the Republicans, that 58 percent of welfare recipients are not working, those figures are indeed more than questionable. The National Governors Association disagrees with it. And I urge everybody to go back to their States and look at the figures, the data behind those who are on welfare, how many have kids with disabilities, how many have other problems, so we see what the reality is.

Quickly, child care. I do not know how you on the majority side stand up and say you are for adequate child care when it is only $2 billion; CBO says it is billions inadequate. If we take into account inflation, it is $5 billion to $6 billion inadequate. How do you say that? Mr. Chairman, $1 billion is so inadequate that only it is mandatory and $1 billion is discretionary, if appropriated. It is a smoke screen.

And then this figure of $16,000 TANF per family. That is not only fuzzy math, that is phony math, because it includes all the child care for all working families, allocated or ascribed to people who are on TANF. And also another thing it does, it takes all of the programs of TANF that are not cash assistance and forgets about that as part of the TANF program.

The Cardin, et al bill is a bill to help people move to work out of poverty. That is where America wants to go and where this House should be going. Support the Cardin bill.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to commemorate the 85th anniversary of Lithuanian independence and the 13th anniversary of freedom from Soviet occupation. In Southfield, Michigan, the Lithuanian-American Community of Michigan will be gathering on Sunday, February 16, 2003 at Divine Providence Lithuanian Catholic Church to celebrate this historic event.

In February 1918, Lithuania declared its independence from Czarist Russia. During this period, Lithuanians were free to follow their cultural traditions and express their national identity. The Molotov- Ribbentrop pact of 1939 caused Lithuania to spend the next five decades under Soviet domination, forced to deny their heritage, their language and their traditions.

Despite the military might and repressive acts of the Soviets, the Lithuanians never lost touch with their roots and never lost their will. Lithuania's re-established independence in 1990 served as a testament to the courage, endurance and strength of the Lithuanian people. I was fortunate enough to be in Lithuania as its people celebrated the regaining of its independence.

In the 13 short years since the re-establishment of its independence, Lithuania has made extraordinary advances in restoring democracy, ensuring human rights, securing the rule of law, developing a free market economy, and cultivating friendly relations with neighboring countries. Such achievements should be an inspiration to people everywhere.

Mr. Speaker, I unite with Lithuanian-Americans and Lithuanians around the world in celebrating their independence day.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the resolution before the House, which expresses the condolences of the House of Representatives to the families of the astronauts who were lost on the space shuttle Columbia. The crew of Columbia died doing something important. None of us will forget their courage, dedication and sacrifice and we stand with their families during this difficult time.

In the wake of Saturday's tragedy, we're left with a lot of questions. How did this accident happen? What systems aboard the shuttle failed? Were there warning signs that Columbia would be in peril when it returned from orbit? Can the remaining space shuttles be made safe? These questions, and many others, must be candidly answered before the space program can recover from this accident and move forward.

The damage to our nation goes well beyond the loss of Columbia and seven extraordinary individuals, and it will not be repaired solely by technological fixes, such as stronger heat-resistant tiles or better insulation on the external fuel tank. I have a young friend named Patrick who was simply devastated when he heard the first news reports that Columbia had been lost with no survivors. Patrick is an eight- year-old student in 3rd grade. Like the rest of us, he has many questions. He wanted to know why the astronauts had to die and why there was no way for them to escape from the shuttle when the problem became apparent.

For young children, the space shuttle is much more than a way to launch people and material into orbit. The shuttle embodies a space program they admire and want to be a part of. Many children, like Patrick, are old enough to know about the 1986 Challenger accident, but had come to believe the problems had been fixed and that the shuttles were safe. When we lost Columbia and its crew on Saturday, we may have also lost a dream shared by many young people of one day growing up to be an astronaut. We need to find a way to repair this damage as well.

All of us know that space flight is inherently risky. This is not a fact we should be comfortable in accepting. We need to spend the time, effort and resources to find ways to make space flight less risky. This is the most important task before us as we look to the future of the space program.

I commend the Leadership on both sides of the aisle for sponsoring this resolution and urge its passage by the House of Representatives.

Mr. Speaker, it has been said here that unfortunately the 107th adjourned without passage of a bill like this. I was here with the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) and the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer) that day of sine die adjournment. We tried to bring up this issue. We were thwarted by the Republican majority. We asked that we bring up the Senate bill. Unanimous consent is all that was needed.

The gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sessions) says the President has spoken passionately. On that day the President was silent. Now there has been political pressure. Now some of the faces of the unemployed have appeared in the newspapers and on television. And so now you are ready to act. The Senate has acted. But, look, I think we can do better and there is time for us to do even better.

One of my colleagues on the Republican side said there should be no interruptions to those who are hurting, if I got the words down correctly. What about the million who have exhausted their extended benefits and who are hurting? To the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sessions), 56,000 from your State. The gentleman from Iowa talked about the unemployed in his State. How about the 8,500-plus who have exhausted their benefits and who are looking for work who are hurting. Why do we not act?

Well, the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Nussle) talks about the budget process. You are waiving it today up to a point. There is an unwillingness to waive it to let us bring up coverage of those who have exhausted their benefits. There is $25 billion in the trust fund for this purpose. And our proposal would include enough people so that everybody would be covered within the $25 billion.

Look, I remember so vividly on that day when we adjourned sine die, we held a press conference, and distributed by the Republicans on the Committee on Ways and Means ``Debunking Liberal Myths on the Unemployment Picture.'' That was distributed as we came out of the press conference. ``Debunking liberal Myths on the Unemployment Picture.''

Look, I suggest to people who think unemployment is a liberal myth, talk to the unemployed when you go home tomorrow. Talk to their families. Find out the trials and the tribulations. I think if you will do that, you will agree today we could have done even better. We could have done better.

Mr. Speaker, I just want to speak further to clarify this issue that the gentlewoman from Washington has spoken about. There are a million people who exhausted their 13 weeks of extended benefits. There are 31,500 of them in your State. To the gentleman from Pennsylvania, 44,000 are in your State. In 1991, we provided 26 weeks of extended benefits. We did not need to change the trigger to do that.

We Democrats here today wanted to provide to those people an additional 13 weeks if they were still out of work. You keep talking about those who are out of work, who are hurting, who are looking for work. How about the million who have been out of work beyond the 39 weeks who are looking for work? Why do we not act today as we did 10 years ago? Why not? What is the obstacle? Is it because the Senate would have to act? All right. They would have to act. They are going to be in session. The Republicans control both Houses and the White House. This is a vivid example of those who have control not being willing to exercise it.

I understand covering one's tracks politically. We should have acted in December, and you failed to do it. But for the unemployed, it is not a question of covering tracks politically. It is covering the expenses day to day for food, for housing, and for health care if possible. There is no excuse for the refusal of the Republicans to let us bring extended benefits for the million of exhaustees up today. Zero excuse.