Benjamin Cardin

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos) and the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Ros- Lehtinen) for bringing forward this resolution. I particularly want to acknowledge the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos) and his extraordinary leadership on human rights issues in this body and thank him for his continued commitment in the Middle East. I also want to thank the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Blunt) and the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer) for sponsoring this resolution. I had the opportunity to travel with our distinguished whips in December to Israel and the West Bank and talk to the leaders in that region. We all have reason to be optimistic with the election of Mr. Abbas. We urge him to continue not only to speak out against violence but to take action to control the terrorists in that region. I also want to congratulate Mr. Sharon, the Prime Minister of Israel, for his disengagement, commitment in withdrawing from the Gaza and parts of the West Bank. He is showing real leadership and commitment in that area. Mr. Speaker, this resolution speaks to the commitment of this country to continue to be an active leader for peace in the Middle East. We know it is important not only for that region but for U.S. interests as well, and I congratulate all that are responsible for bringing this resolution forward today.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos) and the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde) for their leadership on bringing this resolution forward. It is a very important moment in the history of the Ukraine. I also want to congratulate my colleague, the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith) for his leadership on the Helsinki Commission that has consistently raised the issue of fair and transparent elections among the member states for the Organization of Security and Cooperation in Europe. I want to congratulate Viktor Yushchenko and the people of the Ukraine on the fair and transparent run-off elections on December 26. What is very noteworthy is just 5 weeks earlier, that country had a run-off election that was marked by widespread fraud. After that election on November 21, something happened in the Ukraine. The spirit of democracy that we have seen in so many of the former republics of the Soviet Union finally made its way to the Ukraine. The support from the United States was instrumental in bringing about a change in the Ukraine. The support within the OSCE in insisting that its member states comply with requirements of the fair and transparent elections also helped. The will of the people prevailed. All of us remember what happened in Independence Square in Kiev known as the Orange Revolution. It gave strength to their country to seek freedom and fair elections. It gave strength to their institutions, and on December 3, the Supreme Court ruled the November 21 election invalid. Now the Ukraine has followed the lead of the former Soviet republic Georgia in their Revolution of Roses to bring about a fair election process, but, Mr. Speaker, there is a hard task ahead. They have to overcome the dual legacy of corruption and disregard for the rule of law. I know I speak for every person of this Chamber that if Ukraine follows the path of democracy and respect for human rights, as they showed in this past election, they will have this body, they will have this Nation on their side as they fight to develop a democratic system within their country. I applaud this resolution. I strongly support it. I urge my colleagues to support it.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Madam Speaker, as we commemorate the 60th anniversary of the liberation of Auschwitz, I want to acknowledge how fortunate we are in this body to have the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos) as one of our Members. His passion on human rights is so welcomed in this body. He has been the champion on these issues for many years. We thank the gentleman for everything he has meant to our sensitivity on human rights issues. The gentleman has seen it firsthand and has helped us understand the need for activism in this body. I also acknowledge the gentleman from Illinois (Chairman Hyde) for his leadership on human rights issues, and the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith) who is our leader on the Helsinki Commission, not only on this issue, but on anti-Semitism generally. He has led the effort in the international body to make sure that we pay attention to the rise of anti-Semitism in Europe today. Last year I had an opportunity to visit Auschwitz and see firsthand where a million people lost their lives in the factory of death. It has an impact on all of us who have seen how inhumane people can be. Madam Speaker, in 1991 the participating states of the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe agreed in Krakow, Poland, to ``strive to preserve and protect these monuments and sites of remembrance, including extermination camps, and the related archives, which are themselves testimonials to their tragic experience in their common past. Such steps need to be taken in order that those experiences may be remembered, may help to teach present and future generations of these events, and thus ensure that they are never repeated.'' Auschwitz is just such a site of remembrance. With this resolution, we mourn innocent lives lost and vibrant communities destroyed. We honor those who fought fascism and helped liberate Auschwitz and other Nazi camps. This resolution also goes further and speaks to the compelling need for Holocaust education throughout the globe. In the words of the Krakow Document, we must ``teach present and future generations of these events, and thus ensure that they are never repeated.'' This chilling rise of anti-Semitism in recent years tells us that more must be done. Madam Speaker, I can speak a long time on this subject. This resolution calls on all nations and people to strengthen their efforts to fight against racism, intolerance, bigotry, prejudice, discrimination and anti-Semitism. I am proud that this body is bringing forward this resolution. I commend my colleagues and the leadership of the committee for bringing it forward. I urge all of my colleagues to support the resolution. Madam Speaker, Yad Vashem exhibits the sketches of Zinovii Tolkatchev, a Soviet soldier who was among those who liberated Majdanek and Auschwitz, under the fitting title, ``Private Tolkatchev at the Gates of Hell.'' For surely that is what he saw and what Auschwitz was. As ranking member of the Helsinki Commission, I visited Auschwitz last year and saw for myself the furnaces that took the lives of more than one million human beings at the camp. These furnaces stoked hatred and intolerance to a degree never before seen in human history. Today, I rise as a cosponsor and in strong support of this resolution, which seeks to join the voices of this body to all those gathered in Poland and elsewhere in our common remembrance of the liberation of Auschwitz 60 years ago, on January 27, by Soviet Army troops. I commend Congressman Lantos, the ranking member of the International Relations Committee, for introducing this resolution and for his steadfast leadership in his work against anti-Semitism and for Holocaust education and awareness. I am also deeply heartened that the United Nations General Assembly, at the request of many governments and with the support of Secretary General Kofi Annan, convened a special session on January 24 to mark the liberation of the Auschwitz and other death camps. Madam Speaker, in 1991, the participating State of the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) agreed in Cracow, Poland, to ``strive to preserve and protect those monuments and sites of remembrance, including most notably extermination camps, and the related archives, which are themselves testimonials to their tragic experiences in their common past. Such steps need to be taken in order that those experiences may be remembered, may help to teach present and future generations of these events, and thus ensure that they are never repeated.'' Auschwitz is just such a site of remembrance. With this resolution, we mourn innocent lives lost and vibrant communities destroyed. We honor those who fought fascism and helped liberate Auschwitz and other Nazi camps. This resolution also goes further and speaks to the compelling need for Holocaust education throughout the globe. In the words of the Cracow Document, we must ``teach present and future generations of these events, and thus ensure that they are never repeated.'' The chilling rise of anti-Semitism in recent years tells us that more must be done. This resolution calls on all nations and peoples to strengthen their efforts to fight against racism, intolerance, bigotry, prejudice, discrimination, and anti-Semitism. In the last Congress I was pleased to join with Mr. Lantos and Helsinki Commission Chairman Chris Smith in working to enact the Global Anti-Semitism Review Act of 2004. Earlier this month the U.S. State Department issued its first-ever global report on anti-Semitism, as mandated by the legislation. We now have a roadmap to build upon in the future, which details both best practices by states as well as areas in which participating States are still falling short of their OSCE commitments. In April 2004 I attended the Conference on Anti-Semitism of the OSCE in Berlin with Secretary of State Colin Powell. The 55 Participating States of the OSCE adopted a strong action plan, the Berlin Declaration, which lays out specific steps for states to take regarding Holocaust education, data collection and monitoring of hate crimes against Jews, and improved coordination between nongovernmental organizations and European law enforcement agencies. During our conference, on the evening of April 28, President Johannes Rau of Germany hosted a dinner for the President of the State of Israel Moshe Katsav. President Katsav spoke powerfully about the need to combat the rising tide of anti-Semitism throughout the world. I cannot tell you how powerful it was to listen to the German President and the Israeli President address the issue of anti-Semitism together in Berlin. Let me just highlight one section of President Katsav's remarks: ``The violence against the Jews in Europe is evidence that anti- Semitism, which we have not known since the Second World War, is on the rise. This trend of the new anti-Semitism is a result of the aggressive propaganda, made possible by modern technologies, globalilzation and abuse of democracy and which creates an infrastructure for developing and increasing anti-Semitism, of a kind we have not known before . . . Many times I have heard voices saying that anti-Semitism is not unique and that it is no different from other kinds of racism. Anti-Semitism should indeed receive special attention. Hatred against the Jews has existed for many generations and it is rooted in many cultures and continents through the world. However, now anti-Semitism has become an instrument for achieving political aims . . . The genocide of the Jews was the result of anti-Semitism and was not caused by a war between countries or a territorial conflict and, therefore, anti-Semitism is a special danger for world Jewry and the whole of Europe.'' I urge others here today to join me in supporting this resolution.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, I rise to express my deepest condolences and support to those affected by the earthquake-generated tsunamis that struck numerous countries in South Asia and East Africa on December 26, 2004. This enormous natural disaster, which has so far claimed more than 150,000 lives, including many Americans, requires a robust response from the international community. I am pleased that the United States is taking a leading role in the relief and recovery efforts. We should continue to partner with the United Nations, non-governmental organizations, and other members of the international community to render humanitarian assistance throughout the region. I look forward to working in Congress to increase America's contributions to this effort as additional needs required for long-term rebuilding are identified. Over the past 10 days, the outpouring of condolences and financial support from the American people has been tremendous. The efforts of the thousands of Americans who are giving of their time, money, and resources are truly reflective of the American spirit, and they exemplify our Nation's values and ideals. I join with my colleagues today in support of the House resolution.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, the chairman of the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct is correct when he says that ethics reform must be bipartisan and if the House is to have meaningful bipartisan ethics process, changes of this magnitude can be made, as they were in 1997, only after thoughtful, careful consideration on a bipartisan basis. There has been no effort to look at the rules changes on ethics in a bipartisan manner. In 1997 when I co-chaired the Committee on Ethics Reform along with Bob Livingston, the changes that we made were done after deliberation, and after Democrats and Republicans, working together, came before the House and we did make major changes. And we instituted the 45-day rule for assigning a proper complaint for investigation; but we changed the rules in 1997. We made it clear that you can move towards an informal investigation without a finding that it merits further inquiry or a resolution of preliminary inquiry because we did not want any matter of guilt or wrongdoing for the committee to be able to get the facts necessary to decide whether to go to formal investigation. Yet this rules change which would allow after 45 days inaction to dismiss a complaint makes inaction action, and it can be done on a very partisan basis. Now, that is wrong. That is not how it should be. The rules as they are currently configured in order to move a complaint past the committee, you have to have the bipartisan agreement of the committee because you have to have a vote in the committee. It guarantees a process will move forward in a bipartisan manner and, in fact, the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct has operated in a bipartisan manner because of the way the rules are configured. If this rule is changed, you are making it much more likely that the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct will act in a very partisan matter because they will be able to delay for 45 days, which does not take a lot of effort to figure out how to delay for 45 days. We have enough lawyers on the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct that will be able to figure out that one. And it will be done on a partisan basis that will leave a cloud on the Member and a cloud on this institution. You should not have that in this rule.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, I rise to pay tribute to my colleague and friend, Bob Matsui. As Members of Congress, many factors determine who we form close relationships with. One of those factors is committee assignment. I had the tremendous fortune of serving on the Ways and Means Committee with Bob Matsui for 15 years. As we worked on tax reform, trade, health, and many other issues, I learned many valuable lessons from him. His dedication to the people of his district and to all the people of this Nation shone through at every hearing and markup. He had a lifelong commitment to public service and the public good. Even though his early years were spent in a Japanese-American internment camp in California, that injustice did not dim his love and devotion to our country. He remained in California, served on the Sacramento City Council, and as vice mayor of Sacramento, and eventually came to this House, which he also loved so very much. For his entire career, he was devoted to the welfare of children, the promotion of free trade, and the preservation of Social Security for future generations. I know that the committee will miss his expertise and good counsel for many Congresses to come. I want to personally extend my heartfelt condolences to his wonderful wife Doris, his son Brian, daughter in-law Amy, and his granddaughter Anna. We will miss Bob and forever treasure his camaraderie.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce the Medicare PPO Fairness Act. This bill addresses an urgent problem facing 98,000 Medicare beneficiaries whose legal rights to health care services have been denied. Today may be the last day of the 108th Congress, and so I will reintroduce this measure in January in the hope that members will consider it early next year. In 2003, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, CMS, began a Medicare PPO Demonstration to test the efficiency of different types of private health plans in the Medicare program. Preferred provider organizations, PPOs, are forms of managed care that are somewhat less restrictive than health maintenance organizations, HMOs. Generally speaking, in an HMO model, patients are covered only for services rendered by doctors, hospitals and other providers who are ``in- network,'' meaning on the plan's approved list. By contrast, in a PPO, patients are covered not only for services rendered by providers on the approved list, but also for other providers, but they must usually pay additional out-of-pocket costs. For purposes of this demonstration program, Congress gave CMS flexibility with respect to payments to these private plans but not with respect to the benefits that they must provide to seniors. We have recently learned from the General Accountability Office, GAO, that CMS exceeded its authority. According to a report issued in late September, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, CMS, improperly gave private health plans permission to limit beneficiaries' access to care from providers who were not in the plans' networks. GAO found that 29 of the 33 PPO plans in the demonstration told seniors that if they sought covered services from providers not in their network they would be liable for all charges. As of this year, more than 98,000 seniors were enrolled in demonstration PPO plans, including 3,000 seniors in my home state of Maryland, so thousands of seniors have been affected by these restrictions. In the GAO report, CMS Administrator Mark McClellan concurred with GAO's findings and said his agency would instruct all participating plans that they must cover out-of-network as well as in-network care. That is the right thing for Dr. McClellan to do, but it is not sufficient. I remain concerned about the thousands of seniors who for the past two years were told in error that they had no right to see their provider of choice. There are also countless providers who were improperly denied the opportunity to treat beneficiaries--and therefore lost income--simply because they were not on the PPG's provider panel. Finally, I remain concerned about those seniors who paid out-of-pocket for medical care--including routine physical examinations, home health services and skilled nursing care--that Medicare should have covered. It is Medicare's responsibility to reimburse for those services. The bill that I am filing today would accomplish two things: first, it would ensure that seniors in Medicare PPOs are aware of their rights. It would require the Secretary of HHS to immediately notify each of the approximately 98,000 PPO enrollees that they are entitled to receive services from both in-network and out-of-network providers. I learned about the GAO's findings from the newspapers. Our seniors should not have to rely on the press to learn what benefits they are entitled to from Medicare. Second, my bill would require the Medicare program to reimburse those beneficiaries in PPOs who erroneously paid out-of-pocket for care from out-of-network providers. Those seniors who enrolled in the Medicare PPO demonstration program deserve to receive all the benefits they are legally entitled to, and they should be made whole. This bill is budget neutral. It provides for all payments for reimbursable services rendered in 2003 and 2004 to be deducted from planned 2005 payments to Medicare PPOs, money that has already been allocated for next year. Mr. Speaker, I think all members would agree that our seniors should have access to a full range of choices within the Medicare program, and that Congress should ensure that seniors receive all the benefits to which they are entitled. My bill will help guarantee that in the demonstration program now in operation at CMS, seniors get the benefits that Congress intended. I hope this bill will be enacted quickly when the 109th Congress convenes next year, and I urge my colleagues to support this measure.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay special tribute to Professor David E. Vocke, Ph.D. of Towson University for his dedication and commitment to training future teachers. Professor Vocke has been selected for his work by the Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching and the Council for Advancement of Support Education as one of this year's U.S. Professors of the Year. Professor Vocke has been a full professor at Towson University since 1997. Towson University is nationally recognized for its rigorous and demanding education program. As a professor of secondary education at Towson, he has dedicated himself to developing several successful precollegiate intervention programs with the Baltimore City Public School system. These programs bring middle and high school students from diverse, low-income schools to the Towson University campus for experiences that are designed to inspire them to attend college. At the same time, these programs have provided his students majoring in education with unique and valuable experiences. Professor Vocke has spent his professional career preparing undergraduates for careers in education. Since 1981, the U.S. Professors of the Year Program has rewarded outstanding professors for their dedication to teaching and commitment to students. The program seeks to increase awareness of the importance of excellent undergraduate instruction at all colleges and universities. I hope my colleagues in the U.S. House of Representatives will join me in saluting Professor David E. Vocke for his dedication to undergraduate education and his desire to instill a love of teaching in all his students.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Chairman, the national capital region was established in 1952 during the 82nd Congress. It includes not only the District of Columbia; it includes in Maryland, Prince George's and Montgomery counties. In Virginia, it is Arlington, Fairfax, Loudoun, and Prince William counties. In the south, Mr. Chairman, the region goes about 30 miles. In the north, it goes about 10 miles. If it went 30 miles to the north, it would include Baltimore, where I happen to live. When we adopted the Homeland Security Act in 2002, we made reference to the national capital region. What we are asking, and I applaud my friend from Maryland (Mr. Bartlett) is to let the Department of Homeland Security study the security issues of this region. If we have a problem in the Nation's capital and people try to leave this region, they are going to want to be able to get to Crofton and Annapolis and to Frederick, and there is going to be gridlock if we do not have a plan that includes beyond that short distance in Maryland. All this does is ask for a study. It does not diminish resources at all. In fact, it will allow us to provide a more reasonable plan for the Nation's capital.

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Chairman, first, I thank the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith) for bringing forth this amendment. Mr. Chairman, let me point out that the adoption of this amendment is very much consistent with the 9/11 Commission's report. They talk about the United States winning the battle of ideas. The United States has stood against persecution of individuals because of race, nationality, or religion. If we do not adopt this amendment, the underlying bill will make it much more difficult for people who are legitimately being persecuted to be able to claim asylum in the United States. That is not what this Nation is about. Our Nation is about helping people and individuals who are being persecuted. This amendment is very important. I urge my colleagues to support it.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, this is a serious issue, the fact that we have a retaliatory tariff that has been imposed against us because of our sales corporation fix. We need to take care of that. The Foreign Sales Corporation Act has caused us a retaliatory tariff. The problem is, Mr. Speaker, we have an easy way to do it. There was a bill introduced by the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel) and the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Crane), bipartisan, that would have fixed it. It would have done it in a true revenue-neutral way. Instead, we have a bill that is going to cost tens of billions of dollars in unrelated provisions. Let me just mention one of those provisions. It would authorize private tax collection on a contingency fee to harass our taxpayers, giving these private collectors government immunity. We tried that before and it did not work. That is wrong. It should not be in this bill, and yet it is. When we take away the sunsets and all the other provisions, we really have $80 billion that is not funded in this legislation, adding to the deficit of this country. But, Mr. Speaker, there is another provision that was left out of this bill. There was a tobacco buyout that was put in, even though we had no hearings in our committee on it or any hearings at all, but the other body at least had the good sense to subject the tobacco to the FDA, using taxpayer money. That seems to make sense, and yet the final report leaves that out. There are more people who die every year from tobacco than from alcohol, AIDS, car crashes, illegal drugs, murders collectively. We had a chance to do something about that in this legislation. Instead, we are spending taxpayer money and not taking care of the problem. Mr. Speaker, there are numerous provisions unrelated that should be in this bill, and for those reasons I regret that I will not be able to support this legislation.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Cramer).

Mr. CARDIN. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, when a child in foster care is waiting for a loving home, they should not have to wait an extra year to be placed in that home solely because it exists in another State. Unfortunately, that is exactly what happens in many cases today. The interstate placement of foster children is too often delayed by bureaucratic red tape, the lack of communication, differing standards among States, insufficient resources, and sometimes just plain indifference. The truth is that when one is dealing with an out-of- state placement, a particular State does not give it the same attention it does to a placement within its own State. I therefore support this legislation to encourage States to expedite the appropriate placement of children across State lines. The bill before us calls upon States to update a compact that dictates the process for interstate placement, and it requires States to expeditiously conduct home studies for children coming from other States. Concluding these home studies, which evaluate whether prospective foster or adoptive parents can provide a safe and caring home for a child, has been one of the primary barriers to placing children across State lines. The legislation attempts to focus States' attention on this problem by requiring the completion of home studies within 60 days and by offering financial bonuses for every study that is completed within 30 days. I want to congratulate and thank the distinguished gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay), majority leader, for bringing this legislation forward and for working with both sides of the aisle to try to perfect this bill and to make it one that we hope can be enacted this year. As a result of those discussions, some important changes have been made, and let me just point them out. First, the revised legislation now exempts the training of the foster and adoptive parents from both the 60- and 30-day home study timetables. Many States help prepare prospective adoptive and foster parents, and sometimes this training can take up to 3 months. We want to encourage such efforts; and, therefore, the new bill does not count training against a home study requirement and bonus. Second, we recognize that factors beyond a State's control, such as waiting for an FBI background check or medical records, can sometimes prolong the home study process. The revised bill therefore gives States an additional 15 days, for a total of 75 days, to complete the home study in such circumstances. And, finally, the new bill increases the bonuses for home studies completed within 30 days to $1,500 and clarifies that the $10 million a year will be authorized for these bonuses for the next 4 years. So the States can really plan on these new roles. I should point out that one controversial provision remains in the bill that is not directly related to the goal of expediting interstate placements. The bill would eliminate the ability of States to determine their own standards for placing children with relatives of adoptive parents who have committed criminal offenses in the past. Mr. Speaker, my own State already complies with Federal standards in this area; and, therefore, I am not opposed to that provision in the bill. However, I understand that New York, California, and seven other States want the flexibility to make placement decisions on past offenses that may have happened many years ago. Those nine States now opt out of the Federal standards, an option that would be eliminated by this legislation. However, the revised bill does delay the effect of this change for 2 years, giving the States more time to modify those procedures. Mr. Speaker, we have 500,000 children in foster care of which over 100,000 are ready for adoption. We need to remove barriers between these children and loving homes, and this bill takes a modest, but meaningful, step in that direction. In closing, once again let me compliment the majority leader for allowing this Congress to focus on the issues of foster children. We have been able to do that in a bipartisan manner, and we have made some very constructive changes that have helped our most vulnerable children, and I congratulate him on this legislation. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, in closing, I would just urge my colleagues to support this very important bill, and I compliment the manner in which it was handled in this body, improving the legislation. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker I yield 4 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Washington (Mr. McDermott), a member of the Committee on Ways and Means.

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Watson).

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Cardoza), one of the cosponsor of this legislation.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay special tribute to Kristen Adelman who was a member of the Tour of Hope bike ride across America. On Oct. 1, 2004, Kristen joined six-time Tour de France winner Lance Armstrong in a relay bike ride from Los Angeles, CA to Washington, D.C. to help inform the public about the importance of cancer clinical trials. Kristen is a cancer survivor who has survived three recurrences of an aggressive form of lymphoma. In remission for more than 18 months, Kristen was selected to join 20 other cyclists, including Lance Armstrong, in the eight-day, life-affirming journey across America. Other participants included cancer survivors, physicians, nurses, researchers and advocates who all share one mission--to find a cure for cancer. Kristen is from Elkridge, MD where she teaches algebra and physical education at the St. Augustine School. She was an active triathlete and marathon runner before her diagnoses of cancer. In fact, while going through treatment, she continued to run and ride her bike. To prepare for the Tour of Hope, Kristen went through a rigorous 16- week training program. She undertook this ride because she wanted to draw attention to the importance of cancer research. Kristen understands that the only way to find a cure for cancer is through clinical trials, which will help identify safe and effective drugs. I hope my colleagues in the U.S. House of Representatives will join me in offering our gratitude and appreciation to Kristen for her generosity of spirit and fortitude. It is precisely this type of commitment that will allow us to conquer cancer.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.J. Res. 106, a constitutional amendment regarding marriage. I personally believe that marriage is the union of a man and a woman. In 1996, I voted in favor of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), which became law with President Clinton's signature. The Act defined marriage for federal purposes as a legal union between one man and one woman. The bill also protected states from being compelled to honor another state's law or judicial proceeding that recognizes marriage between persons of the same sex. DOMA is current federal law. I am therefore puzzled as to why the House leadership has chosen to schedule this matter for a vote in such a hasty manner, without the benefit of a markup in the Judiciary Committee, just one month before Election Day. In July of this year, the Senate rejected this amendment by a vote of 48-50, short of even a majority vote, and much less than the two-thirds vote required to send the amendment to the states for ratification. This amendment is unnecessary. DOMA is the law of the land which both defines marriage at the federal level and protects states from having to change their own definitions of marriage by recognizing other states' same-sex marriage licenses. DOMA has never been invalidated by any court, and many states have properly used DOMA to refuse to recognize same-sex marriages performed in other states. The decision of the citizens of Massachusetts to authorize same-sex marriages in their state in no way requires the citizens of the state of Maryland to do so. I am also concerned about the unnecessarily broad scope of the amendment, which states that Federal or State constitutions shall not be construed ``to require that marriage or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon any union other than the union of a man and woman.'' (emphasis supplied). Many State, county and local governments currently provide either domestic partner benefits or civil union benefits to gays and lesbians in their jurisdictions. Such benefits include visiting each other in the hospital, sharing health insurance plans, and rights of inheritance. These benefits--again, decided by local governments and citizens--could be called into question by this Federal constitutional amendment if they are considered ``legal incidents'' of marriage. As compared to a Federal statute, a constitutional amendment limits the ability of Congress to make future changes. The first sentence of the amendment does not even require State action, which means that private parties--such as religious institutions and private businesses--could be bound by the Federal Government's definition of ``marriage.'' The amendment could therefore call into question the benefits that many companies provide to same-sex partners. I note that a broad array of both civil rights, religious, and business organizations are opposed to the amendment. Finally, Congress should only adopt a constitutional amendment as a matter of last resort when a statutory approach is ineffective. In this case, that standard has not been met. We have only amended our Constitution seventeen times since the adoption of the Bill of Rights in 1791. I have consistently supported legislation to protect the civil rights of all Americans, regardless of their sexual orientation. For example, I believe that Congress should make it illegal to terminate an employee solely on the basis of sexual orientation. I believe this amendment is inconsistent with the civil rights currently enjoyed by many gays and lesbians as a result of State and local laws. This constitutional amendment could inadvertently sanction discrimination based on sexual orientation beyond the legal status of marriage.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I listened to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Shaw) and I agree with almost everything he said. In 1996 we were able to pass a bill by working together as Democrats and Republicans, and I am amazed that the bill that the Republican leadership has been advancing in this Congress would take us backwards, take away the discretion of our States to deal with the welfare programs. That presumes that some of our States are not capable of dealing with it. In 1996 we trusted our States, and it worked. Mr. Speaker, I yield 6 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin), a senior member of the Committee on Ways and Means and a Member who has worked on welfare reform since he has been in Congress. (Mr. LEVIN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Woolsey).

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, only in this body with Republican leadership can they blame everyone but themselves. Even though they control this body, the other body, and the White House, they seem to blame everybody else for the failure to enact the reauthorization of welfare. Only in this body. And then my distinguished chairman says that our States want us to pass a long-term reauthorization. And the chairman is absolutely right, but they do not want us to pass the bill that passed this body because it would take us backwards in welfare rather than forward in reform. I do appreciate the fact that the distinguished chairman at least had the title of the bill accurately reflect what we are doing here, and that is Welfare Reform Extension Act, Part VIII. Eight times in the last 2\1/2\ years we have had short-term extensions because of the failure of the Republican leadership to work for a bill that would build on the work that was done in 1996 to give our States the flexibility they need in order to implement welfare reform and give them the resources they need. Instead, we have a bill that passed this body that was anything but bipartisan. In fact, we never even had hearings in our committee. We had a markup, but no hearings in this Congress because of the failure to really reach out and try to do something that could be enacted into law. So, Mr. Speaker, I am terribly disappointed that we are again looking at an extension. I support this bill, so my distinguished chairman and I are in agreement, we do not want to see this program lapse. It is an important program. It extends not only the TANF program but several related programs, including child care and development block grants and transitional Medicaid assistance for people leaving welfare to work. I agree with those who say we should be doing more, much more. After all, over the last 3 years, the number of Americans in poverty has grown by 4.3 million. Last year alone, another 700,000 children fell into poverty. Meanwhile, funding for several antipoverty programs, including TANF, child care and social services block grant and job training through the Workforce Investment Act have declined by $1.7 billion in real terms over the last 3 years. In short, we are responding to rising poverty with declining assistance. Regrettably, the long-term welfare authorization plan put forward by my Republican colleagues largely ignores this problem. Instead, they have suggested poverty is rising because welfare recipients are not working hard enough. However, this suggestion falls flat when we consider one basic fact: The welfare rolls have continued to decline even though our poverty rates have grown. The problem is not the unwillingness of people on welfare to work; the problem is that too many of these people leaving welfare are not finding employment, or they are finding jobs which do not lift them out of poverty. We could help by providing more child assistance and job training, but so far the majority and President Bush have resisted such reforms. While obviously an imperfect response, temporarily extending TANF funds is certainly better than fundamentally dismantling the successful parts of the 1996 welfare reform law such as providing our States and communities with the flexibility to determine how to best move welfare recipients into the work force. Therefore, I support this legislation to maintain necessary funding for several poverty programs over the next 6 months in the hopes that we can pass a more comprehensive improvement next year. One area that Congress must focus on next year is providing access to affordable child care, which is undoubtedly one of the biggest problems confronting low-income working families. Mr. Speaker, the price of child care can easily range between $4,000 and $10,000 per year per child. It is no wonder that the Urban Institute found that families in poverty with day-care expenses spent almost a quarter of their earnings on child care. Unfortunately, many States have cut back on child care assistance because of recent budget shortfalls. This problem has been documented by the General Accounting Office and more recently in a report by the National Women's Law Center. Their study found that between 2001 and 2004, three-fifths of our States made child care eligibility more restrictive. Half the States raised their copayments on low-income families, waiting lists for those eligible for aid but not receiving it grew in more than a dozen States. My own State of Maryland has frozen enrollment in child care for working families. In other words, the only way in Maryland that families can get child care assistance is to go on welfare. What a message. Instead of helping to address this problem, the Federal Government has not even allowed child care funding to maintain the pace with inflation over the last 2 years. The long-term TANF reauthorization bill passed by this body earlier this session will simply continue this disturbing trend by reducing the real value of child care assistance. We can and should do better for America's struggling families. Mr. Speaker, there is much work to be done, but in the meantime I urge support for this temporary extension of funding for several poverty-related programs for the eighth time in the last 2.5 years. Like the past seven extensions, this bill simply continues current law without including any new controversial policy changes. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Rodriguez).

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Speaker, I use that 1\1/2\ minutes first to join the gentleman from California (Mr. Herger) in recognizing the outstanding work that Vee Burke has provided for more than 30 years at the Congressional Research Service. Vee has helped our committee conduct its work on poverty and public assistance issues by providing detailed and meticulously accurate information on program rules, participation and trends. Since 1981, she has been a regular and valued contributor to the Ways and Means Green Book, which is the key resource on poverty programs for Members of Congress and their staff. Vee's expertise on welfare issues started during the Nixon administration and has continued through all major developments thereafter, including the 1996 welfare reform law and our current efforts to reauthorize that law. Her work has provided a foundation of understanding needed to improve our Nation's safety net programs. We wish Vee well in her pending retirement, and we thank her for her contributions to improving social programs in our great Nation. Mr. Speaker, I can assure the Members that the gentleman from California (Mr. Herger) and I are in complete agreement in regards to Vee Burke's contributions to this body and to this Nation and also urging our colleagues to support this legislation. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin) for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, there is a real question as to whether the legislation that has moved through this body would encourage the outsourcing of U.S. jobs and exporting of jobs or correct a problem in the Tax Code that needs to be corrected. This is a very serious issue. The Foreign Sales Corporation Act that was enacted was an effort to level the playing field for U.S. producers versus our trading partners, particularly in Europe. For, you see, we have a different corporate tax structure than the Europeans have and the Foreign Sales Corporation Act was an effort to level the playing field. The problem is that the World Trade Organization that we belong to declared that to be unlawful and opposed imposed retaliatory tariffs against U.S. exports. That tariff is now 11 percent. It will grow to 14 percent by the end of the year and 17 percent by next March. Mr. Speaker, it is unconscionable that we have not corrected this situation prior to this time. We had a bipartisan proposal that would have fixed the problem. As my friend from Massachusetts pointed out, it was a relatively simple matter to fix the problem and to level the playing field for U.S. producers so that we can compete fairly internationally. But, instead, this legislation has become a Christmas tree for every conceivable tax provision, and it has been delayed and delayed and delayed, and our producers that manufacture products right here in America have paid a heavy price because of that delay. The motion to instruct deals with the underlying issue. First, it asks for us to immediately resolve this issue, rather than further delays. Read the motion, paragraph 4. It also says that the relief should be targeted to U.S. producers. That is the problem. The Foreign Sales Corporation Act was for U.S. producers who produce their products here in America. It is not for those who produce their products overseas. It should be targeted, because that is what the problem is. That is what we are trying to do, is level the playing field. We are trying to respond to the World Trade Organization. It is right for us to target this relief to those who produce their products right here in America. That is the problem we are trying to deal with, and that is spelled out in the motion. Then lastly, Mr. Speaker, we are saying that we should not be adding to the deficit of this country. We had a bipartisan solution that did not increase the national debt, but the legislation that passed this body certainly did that. Again, it was another opportunity to show that we can be fiscally irresponsible. We should pay for our tax cuts, and we can so that we do not add to the deficit; and this motion urges us to do that. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support the motion.