Chris Bell

Mr. BELL

Mr. BELL. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time. Mr. Speaker, I rise tonight to talk about the need for follow-through and about what got us to this point. For many weeks now, those of us here on the Democratic side of the aisle have been talking about jobs, the need for an economic stimulus plan that would lead to true job creation, the need to extend unemployment benefits for those who simply cannot find work in this lousy economy. If Members come from a place like Houston, Texas, like I do, in a State that is facing 6.7 percent unemployment, the highest unemployment we have seen in 10 years, and a city like Houston, where more than 2,000 people are losing their jobs each and every month, we realize that people are desperate and that they need a helping hand. But for weeks what we continued to hear from the other side of the aisle was, no, that there would be no further extensions. Well, now that has suddenly changed; and we welcome that change. I know that there will be a lot of chest thumping on the other side of the aisle tonight, that they have now passed an unemployment benefit extension, and many of us will join with them in that vote. The problem is follow-through. Because if you are going to finally be brought kicking and screaming to the realization that people need a helping hand, then at least be willing to give them the hand that they need, not a plan that leaves 1 million unemployed people out in the cold, but provides for another 13-week extension for those individuals; not just another 13-week extension for the others, but a 26-week extension that would provide a real window of opportunity for those individuals to find work. If they are finally going to listen to us and recognize the need to extend unemployment insurance benefits, then they should have been willing to follow through and accept our proposal. I am glad they were willing to go part of the way, but given the economic situation we face in this country, they should have been willing to go the rest of the way.

Mr. BELL

Mr. BELL. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 195, I was unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``nay.''

Mr. BELL

Mr. BELL. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 196, I was unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.''

Mr. BELL

Mr. BELL. Mr. Speaker, this gives us a great opportunity to talk about what has transpired in Austin, Texas, and Ardmore, Oklahoma, over the course of this week and what really has transpired throughout the Nation and to set the record straight. I appreciate having this opportunity. During the course of the debate which has taken place this week, there have been some very large misstatements of fact. This gives us a chance to correct the record on some of those issues. There has been a lot of finger-wagging by the majority leader, Mr. DeLay, along with the Speaker of the Texas House, Mr. Craddick, acting as if they were terribly surprised by the Democrats' reaction to this redistricting bill that was going to be jammed down their throats. Mr. Speaker, we can look back to editorials in almost every major Texas newspaper dating back to January of this year where almost every major newspaper took an editorial position that because of the problems facing the State of Texas, because of the challenges that the Texas legislature would be facing because they only meet every 2 years and they have a very limited amount of time to address those challenges, every major newspaper editorialized that redistricting should be stayed away from. Redistricting had already been accomplished by the courts just 2 years ago. There was absolutely no reason to take an absolutely unprecedented course of action and take up redistricting in what was obviously nonsense this year. But despite those warnings and the warnings set forth very clearly that redistricting would be an incredibly partisan issue, an incredibly divisive issue and would distract from everything that the legislature needed to accomplish, despite those warnings, the majority leader of this body decided to march forward with this very partisan power grab. And so what we saw happen this week with 53 very courageous Democrats from the State House of Representatives going to Ardmore, Oklahoma, had to be expected. There was no surprise. Everybody knew that they would take a stand, that they would fight back. For them to now act as if they were completely shocked is absolutely absurd and absolutely ridiculous. Another question that has been raised during the course of this debate is that is this not politics as usual and now that the Republicans have a majority in the State House, should this not be expected; should they not try to change the majority of congressional districts in the State of Texas since Texas is a majority Republican State. Again, that is a little bit misleading. Because Texas already has a majority of Republican congressional districts. In fact, if one looks at the voter percentages and the voter history in each of the congressional districts in the State of Texas, there are 20 Republican districts and there are only 12 Democratic districts. Why then is there a Democratic majority? Why are there 17 Democrats and 15 Republicans elected to Congress from the State of Texas? That is rather simple. Because in five of those Republican districts, the voters, Mr. Speaker, have decided that they like their Democratic Representatives and have returned them time and time again to the U.S. House of Representatives. That is what in Texas and I think everywhere else in the United States we call democracy. Under this plan, the secret plan that finally saw the light of day that Mr. DeLay is proposing, Mr. Speaker, it would change all that by going in and tearing apart districts, tearing apart communities that have been together for years and years, destroying those districts as they exist today to make it practically impossible for the Representatives, the Democratic Representatives who currently serve in those districts, to be reelected. That is not what we call democracy, Mr. Speaker. That is what we call a very partisan power grab. The heroes from the State House of Representatives in Texas who went to Ardmore, Oklahoma, this week have been criticized by many on the other side of the aisle. They have said that they should be in Austin carrying out the people's business, they should be there to vote on the legislation which is before them. But interestingly, I heard none of those same complaints just last week when the majority leader of this body decided it was more important to be in Austin, Texas, to lobby for his secret redistricting plan instead of being here in Washington, D.C., along with the rest of us voting on the legislation which was before us. I heard nobody from the other side of the aisle rise to the podium and say the majority leader should be here in Washington, D.C., carrying on and representing his district back home.

Mr. BELL

Mr. BELL. Mr. Speaker, I would first like to take this opportunity, because I did not get an opportunity to do so before, to thank several individuals for standing strong in Ardmore, Oklahoma. Representatives Garnett Coleman, Senfronia Thompson, Joe Deshotel, Joe Moreno, Scott Hochberg, Jessica Farrar, Rick Noriega, and Dora Olivo. I just want you to know that the people of Texas are with you, and we are thinking of you here in Washington, D.C. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Edwards).

Mr. BELL. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sandlin).

Mr. BELL

Mr. BELL. Mr. Speaker, I find it appalling that the majority leader of this body can in one breath suggest that our Texas heroes, the 53 men and women of conviction currently in Ardmore, Oklahoma, are unpatriotic and in the next breath suggest the Federal authorities be brought in to force them to pass someone's own political agenda, because what the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay) suggested yesterday is unpatriotic is actually an impressive example of the very fabric that holds this Nation together. It is everything our fathers and grandfathers have fought and died for in two great wars. Mr. Speaker, is freedom of expression unpatriotic? Is the freedom to take a stand against recklessness unpatriotic? Mr. Speaker, when Rosa Parks refused to sit in the back of the bus, was that unpatriotic? The willingness to take a stand for what is right is what defines America. I would like to applaud my Democratic colleagues in the Texas House from Houston for having the courage to stand up to the gentleman from Texas' (Mr. DeLay) political agenda: Garnett Coleman, Rick Noriega, Jessica Farrar, Scott Hochberg, Joe Deshotel, Kevin Bailey, Harold Dutton, Joe Moreno and Senfronia Thompson. They are heroes, and the people of Texas are with them.

Mr. BELL

Mr. BELL. I appreciate this opportunity. I would like to first thank my good friend from Austin for bringing to light what could have been the use of Federal homeland security funds for the purpose of tracking a State legislator's plane. Obviously if that proves to be an accurate report from the Fort Worth Star-Telegram, I think everyone here, probably everyone in the country, would agree that that would be an outrageous use of Federal resources, and hopefully there will be a complete investigation to get to the bottom of that. But while that might top the list of outrageousness on this particular evening, I think it is extremely important that we continue to remind our fellow Texans and our fellow Americans about what has created this particular situation, because going back even several months, this entire affair has been extraordinarily outrageous. It could have been easily avoided, and there was absolutely no reason for it whatsoever. This is an unprecedented act in American history. We did research early on to find out if any State had chosen to undergo a redistricting process simply for partisan reasons long after a census had been taken. We found that that had not occurred in some 50 years, and if I am incorrect on that, I am sure my good friend the gentleman from Dallas, Texas, (Mr. Frost) will correct me because he was the one who was kind enough to have the research performed. But it has not taken place, because that is when redistricting occurs in the United States, after a census, after we can look at how the population has shifted and how the lines should be drawn. But Mr. DeLay has said that because he is the majority leader, he wants more seats. He worked very hard to make sure the majority would change in the State House of Representatives and so he decided to use his heavy-handed tactics and force this power grab, this unprecedented action. When I was back home in my district over the course of the last few days, people said, well, Texas is a majority Republican State now; is it not? So should it not have a majority congressional delegation? I think it is very important that we make that very clear tonight and set the facts forward here this evening. Because of the way our Texas congressional districts are drawn, there are a majority of Republican districts in the State of Texas. In fact, there are 20 Republican districts and only 12 Democratic districts. You might be scratching your head because you have heard there is a Democratic majority. Yes, there are 17 Democratic Representatives from Texas and only 15 Republicans. Why? Because in five of those Republican-dominated districts, the voters have decided that they would prefer the Democratic Representatives to serve them in the United States House of Representatives. That is the way democracy works in America, ladies and gentlemen, and that is the way democracy works in Texas, or at least it did work that way until the majority leader decided that because he is the majority leader, and this is his quote, that he wants more seats. This comes at a time when the State of Texas is facing a 10- to $12 billion budget deficit, when we are dealing with school finance, Medicaid funding, a children's health insurance program, serious issues, serious issues that are deserving of our State lawmakers' attention. But even in light of all of that, our majority leader decided to force their hand and go forward with redistricting. That is what brings us here tonight. And that is what caused our representatives in the State House of Representatives to go to Ardmore, Oklahoma.

Mr. BELL. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Speaker, I think it is very important as we discuss this important subject that we recall some historical perspective. My good friend from Harris County referred to some recent history just a short while ago in which he pointed out some of the hypocrisy of the current speaker of the Texas House. It is also interesting to go back to the year 1984. The reason I think it is interesting is because a lot of people in the last few days have said, is this not just politics as usual? Is this not just what happens in the State of Texas? Well, quite honestly, it is not. If you go back to the year 1984, that was the year that our current majority leader, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay), and five other Republicans were elected. It was an unprecedented success on the Republican side. Interestingly, in 1984 the majority leader of this body, the United States House of Representatives, was none other than Jim Wright, a Democrat from Fort Worth, Texas. In the State House of Representatives, there was a strong Democratic majority, in the State Senate of Texas there was a strong Democratic majority. But in that year there was absolutely no effort made whatsoever to go back and redistrict and change those seats from whence the six representatives, the six Republican representatives, had been elected, because, quite simply, that is just not the way things have been done. As we come to a close tonight, I want to go back to the Houston Chronicle editorial that my good friend the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Green) referred to earlier, because I think it makes a very eloquent case about what we have witnessed this week. In its closing, perhaps the most valid criticism that could be made of the missing Democrats is that ``their place is in the capital, doing the people's business and debating the issues, win, lose or draw. In a more civil era that would be right. But Speaker Craddick throughout the session has discouraged debate, opposition amendments and all of the other give and take of politics. On many occasions, he and his lieutenants seem to regard examination and principal discussion of legislation as irritants. It is not too late to salvage the legislative session. It is past time, however, for Governor Perry, Speaker Craddick, Majority Leader DeLay, et al., to follow George W. Bush's gubernatorial example, and realize that good government is bipartisan government, shaped by compromise, and the broad public interest.''

Mr. BELL

Mr. BELL. Mr. Chairman, I would just point out if we can get a group of Texans excited about looking for a clean, inexpensive form of energy, the House of Representatives should not balk at that opportunity. This is an extraordinary opportunity in many respects. We are not trying to limit the research, just as I pointed out previously in regard to the earlier amendment. This is simply to include a provision in the bill that will lead researchers to look at energy technology and provide funding for energy technology down the line so we can study this. This is not an area that is widely discussed when people talk about nanotechnology. But given what some of the leaders in this area of research have pointed out, there is tremendous optimism that it could lead to a sustainable, clean-burning, inexpensive source of energy; and we should not miss the opportunity to look at that as we are studying nanotechnology.

Mr. BELL. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote, and pending that, I make the point of order that a quorum is not present.

Mr. BELL. Mr. Chairman, the traditional approach on environmental and health concerns for new technologies is to simply wait until there is a problem. Instead of reacting down the line in response to environmental or health problems that may arise in the development of nanotechnology, we have the opportunity through this amendment to understand the risk involved as we move forward in our research now. One common, often fair, criticism of government is that we are slow and reactive. Here is a chance for all of us to be proactive. This amendment will ensure that the environmental and toxicological impacts of nanotech applications are studied during the developmental process so that problems can be spotted early on and fixed before any damage is done. Prevention is better and cheaper than cleanup. I think everybody would agree with that. History has many examples of promising technologies whose hidden costs and risks were only determined after widespread adoption. These include nuclear power, which continues to generate an enormous amount of toxic waste; DDT, which wiped out malarial mosquitoes in the U.S. but was harmful to animal life; semiconductor manufacturing, which ushered in the computer revolution but resulted in environmental contamination. There are other examples of science moving forward but then looking at the implications after the fact. Probably the best most recent example is stem cell research; and regardless of where one lines up in that debate, I think everyone can agree that it would have been smarter for us to look at some of the societal concerns while the research was being developed instead of after the fact. We have a responsibility to quantify the risks ahead of time. We have a responsibility to minimize the unintended consequences. Currently, the toxicological impacts of nanotechnology are not being studied because no funding has been allocated to make it happen. Ultrafine particles, particles larger than nanoparticles, such as asbestos and ultrafine quartz particles, have been known to cause damage to the lungs. We would like to know the toxic effects of nanoparticles. To date, only one comprehensive study has been performed to examine the possible toxicity of nanoparticles. A group of researchers recently discovered that mice and rats develop scar tissue in their lungs after exposure to carbon nanotubes. This was the first preliminary study that examines the possible toxicological risks of nanotechnology. I would submit that these studies must continue. What is the impact on the human body? The answer is that we do not know, but that is a question that we must be able to answer. These very preliminary studies show us that further research is needed. There are issues of risks associated with every new technology. Concerns about nanoparticles' toxicity must be addressed while the field is still young and exposure is limited. We in this body have the responsibility to ensure that the necessary research is being performed to ensure the continued safety of our communities in the face of this exciting new technology.

Mr. BELL. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. BELL. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. BELL. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from California for yielding. In no way would it limit, and that is why we specifically used language that said ``including toxicological and environmental concerns.'' Researchers in this area would still be free to study a wide range of societal and ethical concerns associated with nanotechnology. We just want to make sure that included in that research will be research going toward toxicological and environmental concerns as well. Mr. Chairman, the distinguished Chair of the Committee on Science and I happen to disagree on what could possibly lead to arbitrariness as this research concerning nanotechnology goes forward. It is my fear if we do not set forth some of the areas in particular that we would like to see studied, they could be overlooked. But it is in no way limiting the scope of the research that will be conducted regarding societal and ethical concerns associated with nanotechnology.

Mr. BELL. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote, and pending that, I make the point of order that a quorum is not present.

Mr. BELL. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. BELL. Mr. Chairman, just after being sworn in as a Member of Congress, I had the privilege of listening to Dr. Richard Smalley, who is a Nobel Laureate who now teaches at Rice University and is recognized as a leader in the area of nanotechnology. During the course of his speech, many of his remarks were directed towards the impact that photoresearch and the area of nanotechnology could have in the area of energy. He pointed out to the crowd assembled that evening how in this particular area regarding energy, nanotechnology could very much change the world in which we live. I am not a scientist, but when people start talking about how something could change the world in a very beneficial manner, those words get my attention. The purpose of the amendment that we present here today is to single out energy, along with the other important areas for research that are already set forth within the bill. Nanotechnology holds the promise to make energy production cheap and relatively pollution-free by reducing the cost of solar and fuel cell technology anywhere from 10 to 100 fold. Nanotech lighting technology could replace incandescent and fluorescent lights with enormous energy cost savings across every sector of the economy. If we look at what is going on in the United States today regarding the cost of energy, the price of gasoline skyrocketing all across the country, the cost of natural gas rising so high that plants are threatening to close and move overseas on an almost daily basis, I think all of us can understand the need for looking for low-cost alternative energy sources, especially when it could be a clean source of energy. Mr. Chairman, nanotechnology holds the promise of tomorrow because it truly is the technology of the future. Its application will be felt across the spectrum of scientific research. I hope my colleagues will join me in supporting the development of this exciting field and pinpoint energy as an area that is very much deserving of further study. Mr. Chairman, I urge support for this amendment.

Mr. BELL. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. BELL

Mr. BELL. Mr. Speaker, I was a guest on a Houston radio show earlier this week; and during the course of the interview, the host of the program, Chris Baker, pointed out that Congress, along with the United Nations, has been rather silent on the issue of the treatment of American POWs in Iraq. While that is not all together correct, I know most of our attention here has been focused on supporting the troops and hoping for a successful and speedy conclusion to the conflict. Now that it appears the end is near, and there is cause for great optimism and excitement, we cannot lose site of the atrocities we have seen during the past 3 weeks. I know all my colleagues agree that the treatment of captured allied forces has been outrageous, and we must continue to speak up and insist that those responsible be brought to justice following the war. We must send a clear message that America and the world will not tolerate the mistreatment of our prisoners of war. We expect the same treatment for our sons and daughters that we afford enemy soldiers when they are captured. Please join me in calling for the United Nations to take immediate action to condemn these heinous acts of miss treatments against our POWs.

Mr. BELL

Mr. BELL. Madam Speaker, I would like to thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Turner) for his leadership as the ranking member of the Homeland Security Committee and for giving me this opportunity this evening. Madam Speaker, we as a Nation will pay any price in order to support and protect our troops in the line of fire. There is no cost too high to protect American lives in the face of tyranny and terrorism. This is not a new principle in American government but a promise renewed in the hearts and minds of the American people after the horrific events of September 11, 2001. I think no one in this Chamber would disagree that the world has heard our resounding call: Never again. Never again will we handle the specter of terror with kid gloves or the dismissive neglect of indifference because it is a problem that affects them and not us. This is a lesson that we have all learned together, and I would like to commend my colleagues on both sides of the aisle for their clear commitment to support our troops with the resources they need to protect themselves. One question still hangs heavy over this body. How do we keep our homeland secure? I do not have to tell my colleagues that our firefighters and police officers have become citizen soldiers in the war on terror, our first line of defense against another September 11. Americans have been empowered with a responsibility to protect their families and their communities by working with each other to stop acts of terror before they happen. The war on terror is a war in which we are all on the front lines. I submit to this body that Americans on the front line need greater resources to get the job done. They need more funding in order to protect our homeland. I am particularly concerned about the security of American seaports. America's ports are our gateways of commerce to the world. Each year nearly 6 million seaborne containers enter our Nation's ports, yet only 3 percent, only 3 percent, of the cargo is ever physically inspected. The screenings that are performed are often carried out without the use of detection aids or with only hand-held devices that have limited range and capability. This security gap gives groups like al Qaeda over 5 million opportunities every year to smuggle a nuclear device or weapon of mass destruction into the United States of America. In total, 95 percent of the cargo moving into and leaving this country each year passes through American ports. The region of Texas I call home has one of the largest of these ports. In fact, the Port of Houston receives more foreign tonnage than any other port in America. Each year, Houston alone receives 7.8 million tons of cargo from Iraq itself, 10 million tons of cargo from Saudi Arabia, and nearly 5 million tons from Algeria, a known state sponsor of terrorism. Recently, I had the opportunity to tour the Houston ship channel, home to one of the world's largest concentrations of petrochemical plants and other critical energy infrastructure. Having had the opportunity to see the sheer size of the ship channel, the miles of exposed coastline and the sensitive nature of the industry located there, it became clear just how daunting a task protecting our waterways has become. If a petrochemical plant were to be struck by a bomb, we could face a tragedy greater in magnitude than the Chernobyl meltdown right in the heart of a major metropolitan area. This is a problem we cannot afford to ignore in Houston or anywhere else. The Port of New York/New Jersey, the Port of Long Beach, California, the Port of Charleston, South Carolina, all three are major American ports. All three are located in close proximity to major metropolitan areas. And all three are at serious risk of attacks. These ports I have mentioned are but a few of the at-risk waterways across America. According to the GAO, Tampa Bay is home to Florida's busiest port and receives half of Florida's volume of hazardous materials, such as liquid petroleum gas, sulfur, and ammonia, all this in close proximity to downtown Tampa Bay where thousands of Americans live and work. As my colleagues can see, it is critical that we support our port authorities and the thousands of shipping companies around the world with whom they work by enabling them to do the business of America without the constant threat of a terrorist attack. The U.S. Coast Guard announced last year that necessary improvements to port security will cost $963 million in fiscal year 2004 and as much as $4.4 billion over the next 10 years. But since the attacks of September 11, Congress has appropriated less than $400 million for port security across America. Welcome funding, yes, but far short of where we should be given the challenges we face in protecting America's borders. We must make a commitment in this body to adequately fund port security before it is too late. By giving lip service to the problem and then not providing our local communities with the resources they need to protect our families, we risk undermining our own campaign to rid the world of terror and keep the homeland secure. How do we explain after the next terrorist attack on American soil that our country was willing to spend $80 billion to liberate the oppressed people of Iraq but were unable to commit the money necessary to protect our homeland against what the CIA has determined is one of the greatest vulnerabilities in America today, the threat of attack against our own ports? We must give our heroes on the home front the same quality of support that I know each of us is committed to giving our heroic fighting men and women abroad. The threat to our Nation's ports and our communities is a clear and present danger that cannot be ignored. The time is now to begin fully funding these critical port security needs and it can begin now. The homeland security amendment to the wartime supplemental appropriations bill, to be offered tomorrow hopefully, calls for $440 million for port and chemical plant security and for the Coast Guard. Pass the amendment. The time is now.

Mr. BELL

Mr. BELL. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to H.R. 534 and in support of the bipartisan substitute. I lost my mother in 1999, but really I lost her twice. The first time was when she was suffering from a cruel, mind-altering disease that has afflicted millions of American families, a disease known as Parkinson's. For my mom, each of the 10 years she spent fighting Parkinson's disease was a little more difficult than the one before, until finally her body just could not fight anymore. After losing my mother that way, I will do all I can to help find a cure for diseases like Parkinson's. There are tens of millions of Americans that feel the same way because of someone they have lost in their lives, because fighting for a cure is the right thing to do. I do not know how I am going to explain to my constituents that my colleagues in the House decided not to allow scientists to use the vast technology at our disposal to cure their mother's Parkinson's disease or their grandmother's Alzheimer's or their husband's diabetes, because that is exactly what stem cell research and therapeutic cloning are going to do: cure disease and save lives. Stem cell research is no different than the discovery of penicillin or the invention of the Hart pump or the vaccine for polio. It is simply the next step in modern medicine. When it comes down to it, American families will be the victims of H.R. 534. The price of this bill will be the lives of children, grandchildren, the mothers and fathers that each of us cherishes, all who we were able, but not willing, to save. And why? We all oppose human cloning. That is not the issue. That is not what I am talking about. Let us be perfectly clear. Therapeutic cloning is in no way, shape or form the same as human cloning. I oppose human cloning as do most Members of this House. But we are not talking about simply a ban on human cloning, but a ban on therapeutic cloning as well, a process where there is no fertilization, no implantation, no pregnancy and no chance for a child to be produced whatsoever. Under the proposed bill, therapeutic cloning would be banned and a research process that takes place in a petri dish would be criminalized. A process that provides hope, and someday a cure for millions of Americans, would be criminalized. So for the millions of us who are all too familiar with the pain and suffering brought on by diseases like Parkinson's, Alzheimer's, and diabetes, for those of us who pray every night that a cure can be found, my distinguished colleagues on both sides of the aisle should vote against H.R. 534 and support the bipartisan substitute.

Mr. BELL

Mr. BELL. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from Maryland for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, we have all heard from the Republican side of the aisle the phrase ``compassionate conservative,'' and while our Republican colleagues may have the conservative part down, there is absolutely nothing compassionate about gutting one of the most successful government reform programs in recent history. Let us look at the facts. The bipartisan welfare reforms of 1996 have cut the welfare rolls by more than 50 percent. We have succeeded in breaking the welfare web, the so-called welfare web. But that apparently is not enough for our Republican colleagues. If we look at H.R. 4, there is absolutely nothing that is fiscally responsible about H.R. 4. It would place a huge unfunded mandate upon States all across this country when they can least afford it, including my State of Texas, which is staring at a $10 billion shortfall and has no way of getting out of it at the present time. And that is happening all across this country, yet now we are going to put this unfunded mandate on them. This bill increases the number of work hours for mothers with young children from 20 to 40 hours, while at the same time it decreases the amount of child care money which will be provided for these mothers. Now, let us think about that. If the idea is to move people off of the welfare rolls, why would we set them up to fail from the very beginning? It makes no sense, and in no way, shape or form is it compassionate. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote for the motion to recommit.

Mr. BELL

Mr. BELL. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to urge my colleagues to join me in commending the Nation of Israel and to support passage of this very important resolution. A great philosopher once wrote that ``freedom cannot be bought for nothing. If you hold her precious, you must hold all else of little worth.'' Those words were written thousands of years ago, but I cannot think of any contemporary statement that provides such a clear window into the times in which we now live, into the struggle in which we are now locked. As we have once again learned here in America this past year, the struggle for freedom is a constant one. It is a battle never completely won but one that must be perpetually fought. The battle for freedom is one that exacts an enormous price, and few people on this Earth have paid as heavy a price for their freedom as the people of Israel. And as we see on our evening news on too many nights, the sons and daughters of Israel continue to pay that price just as they have for thousands of years. I think it is only fitting that in the wake of their 17th consecutive election as a free nation that the United States Congress would honor the Nation of Israel. We should honor them for their unwaivering commitment to find and hold freedom, and we should honor them for the sacrifice millions of Jewish people have made in pursuit of their dream, in pursuit of their right to hold free elections as a free people.

Mr. BELL

Mr. BELL. Mr. Speaker, when President Kennedy challenged America to dream space travel was possible, he came to Houston, Texas, where I live. On an autumn day in 1962, he laid out the following challenge: ``We choose to go to the Moon. Not because it is easy, but because it is hard; because that goal will serve to organize and measure the best of our energies and skills; because that challenge is one that we are willing to accept; one we are unwilling to postpone.'' That challenge, delivered to America 40 years ago, has come to define the mission for the brave men and women of NASA, and it has also come to define the spirit of Houston. The seven astronauts of Shuttle Columbia STS-107 embodied that spirit. And in losing them, we have lost part of ourselves. The final crew of the Shuttle Columbia were all men and women of courage. They lived and died as heroes. But for many in the Houston area, the seven members of the Columbia crew were more than fallen heroes. They were our neighbors; and they were our friends, friends that you might see at the grocery store or church or at a parent- teacher conference. Monday night I had the opportunity to visit with Ilan Ramon's grieving father at Beth Yeshuron Synagogue. Ilan had made his home in Houston for the past 4 years. People knew him to be kind and extraordinarily down to Earth. I told Ilan's father what he already knew, that his son was a hero. He thanked me and then said something that none of us should ever forget. He told me that the space program must continue. As a tribute to the lives of the fallen crew and those that have gone before them, as an acknowledgment that we can never simply go back to the way it was before John Glenn, Alan Shephard, or the Moon landing, we must continue to answer the call of the Space Shuttle Columbia. For those who grieve today, but will hope again tomorrow, we must continue the space program. As we begin anew, let us remember the words of President Kennedy on that fateful day in Houston: ``As we set sail we ask God's blessing on the most hazardous and dangerous and greatest adventure on which man has ever embarked.''